From: Hans Aberg (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 08:43:53 CDT
At 21:07 -0700 2005/05/31, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
>>> ... why the heck
>>> was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with
>>> their corresponding atoms, ...
>> One other way to view this (than backwards
>> compatibility with existing character sets), is
>> that the Unicode abstract character set contains
>> more than one type of abstract characters. With
>> modern computing techniques, the most important
>> type to add is the semantic character, which
>> provides proper atomic linguistic semantic units.
>> The characters above, are glyphs, used to
>> simplify rendering.
>The characters above were added for backward compatibility with existing
>character sets. This is known and undisputed, and is not due to
>alternative interpretations of the character-glyph model.
Implicit in my statement is that one can do such an interpretation if
one wants Unicode to move forward with respect to this issue.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 08:44:59 CDT