From: Chris Jacobs (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 11 2005 - 09:35:23 CDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Constable" <email@example.com>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: RE: Arabic letters separated by markup
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > On Behalf Of Chris Jacobs
> > If the HTML requires a multicolor ligature and the font does not have
> > that multicolor ligature glyph,
> > then I would expect the rectangular 'missing glyph' symbol.
> Please explain in what way HTML could require a multicolour ligature?
By requiring that a certain piece of text which already in plaintext was
required to form a ligature, that this same text must also be multicolor.
> Or, more generally, how can HTML require a ligature? AFAIK, there is no
> HTML directive that means "this text must be displayed as a ligature".
Nor a HTML directive that means "ligaturing override: this text does not
need to be displayed as a ligature"
[ but for those who want to display the unligatured arab chars in all their
ugliness there _is_ a plaintext override ;-) ]
How about L2 and L3 in section 8.2 ? I take these as normative, meaning that
these ligatures are not only obligatory in arab language but also obligatory
according to unicode conformance rules. Am I wrong here?
> And the *last* thing you want to do is display a rectangle.
If there is a problem I want to _see_ there is a problem. If I need to
update my fonts or my rendering engine my old renderer should somehow shout
"HEY YOU NEED TO UPDATE !!!". and displaying rectangles looks to me a
sensible way to do that.
I think that is better than displaying a red aleph where the HTML
explicitely requires a black one.
> Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 11 2005 - 09:42:02 CDT