From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 23:03:15 CDT
Richard Wordingham <richard dot wordingham at ntlworld dot com> wrote:
>> Considering what canonical decomposition means, and that e.g. U+006F
>> U+0301 is absolutely identical to U+00F3, that distinction, however
>> clear, is meaningless.
> However, they may render differently! For example, Lucida Sans
> Unicode Version 2.0 (dated 1993) has U+0323 combining dot below, but
> not U+1E6D, LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH DOT BELOW. So U+0074 U+0323 is
> rendered from the font, but U+1E6D is not, despite their having
> identical meanings.
I know people hate to hear this phrase, but This Is Not Unicode's
Problem. Unicode assumes that sufficient rendering-engine power is
available to display whatever the application (OS, user app, whatever)
claims to be able to display. The canonical equivalence does matter.
The existence in a 12-year-old font of some character mappings but not
others does not change this.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 11 2005 - 23:04:55 CDT