Re: unicode Digest V5 #149

From: Gregg Reynolds (
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:21:43 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: unicode Digest V5 #149"

    Patrick Andries wrote:
    > 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.
    No offense, but I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
      Can you try again?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:22:38 CDT