From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:05:58 CST
> What interests me here is the word "must". This is apparently
> a requirement placed on fonts in order for them to be
> considered "Unicode fonts".
It isn't, so most of your subsequent storm of questions are
> But is this part of the official standard?
Well, you quoted from UAX #27, which is part of the specification
of Unicode 3.1, but if you'd done your homework, you could
trace that text into the text of the currently published
Version 4.0 book, on p. 356. See:
if you don't actually own a copy of the book.
Then if you'd actually *read* the text, it is clear that
the text is talking about the requirements that *mathematicians*
place on fonts appropriate for their use, rather than
conformance requirements that the Unicode Standard might
hypothetically (but does not) place on fonts.
> I was under the impression that Unicode officially disclaims
> specification of glyphs and mappings between characters and
> glyphs, but the quote above seems to show that I was mistaken.
Yes, you were mistaken, but not in the way you thought,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:06:43 CST