From: Gregg Reynolds (unicode@arabink.com)
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:21:43 CDT
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?
thx,
gregg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:22:38 CDT