From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 11:15:08 CDT
At 07:51 -0700 2005/06/01, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>"Move forward" in what way? By encoding more precomposed Latin
>ligatures?
As such, I only point out possibilities, without giving suggestions
which way to go.
If one so wants, one can add all the glyphs one wants, adding a
property field saying that it is a rendering character. These will
not then disturb the other characters, which are semantic in nature.
One reason for doing it, is that if one has a Unicode font, then
those glyphs become available. It seems me that is just a question of
how to make these glyphs accessible.
The above should not be construed as though I suggest that this is
what one should really do. I can think of many possibilities.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 11:16:28 CDT