Re: confusables.txt, the official standard, and font requirements

From: Rick McGowan (
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:05:56 CST

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: confusables.txt, the official standard, and font requirements"

    Andrew S wrote:

    > 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". But is this part of the official standard?


    Arguments over "must" in the UTR #25 (the Math TR) are misguided, as I'm
    sure Asmus will eventually point out. It is not part of the standard. It is
    a Unicode Technical Report. As such, it has *NO* conformance clause, and
    has *NO* conformance implications with respect to the standard.

    UTR #25 says right at the top, in the "Status" section:

            "A Unicode Technical Report (UTR) contains informative
            material. Conformance to the Unicode Standard does not
            imply conformance to any UTR. Other specifications, however,
            are free to make normative references to a UTR."

    So when it says:

            "In Fraktur, the letters I and J in particular must be
            made distinguishable."

    It is talking about a desirable state of affairs out in the world and is
    not talking about conformance to the standard.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:07:13 CST