Re: unicode Digest V5 #149

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 13:33:43 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: unicode Digest V5 #149"
    Doug Ewell a écrit :
    Ahmad Gharbeia <gharbeia at gmail dot com> wrote:
    Yes, all the cases described as justifications for the need for glyph
    colouring within normal typesetting.
    This is how subjects like grammar, morphology, orthography, gender
    endings, plural types, etc. were taught to us as children.
    Bold, italics, underlining, changes in font size and style, etc. are all
    used for pedagogical and other communicative purposes.  But they are not
    plain text either.
    And this is why it should not be possible to use these techniques in contextualized or cursive texts with modern days fonts (or cursors apparently for Tamil split vowels whose colour one would want to change to highlight them by first selecting them which is often not possible)? The only case where I agree this does not make sense is in the case of ligature where the constituents may not be recognizable and therefore it would make no sense to ask to be able the colour differently its individual parts.

    P. A.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 13:35:05 CDT