From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 08:58:44 CST
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Richard Wordingham
> If the form of a
> character may be selected by a variant selector, is its form nevertheless
> specified to the same degree if no variant selector appears?
> possibility is that the renderer is free (within the constraints set by
> specifications by other means, e.g. 'features', 'language', etc.) to
> choose the form according to the renderer's author's taste and inclination
> (e.g. programming time constraints).
That is the case (though it's more likely going to be a type designer rather than programmer that's involved).
> The other is that the Unicode standard
> should specify the selection.
The Standard does not specify exact appearance of characters. It only specifies an exact abstract character identity; a representative glyph is provided, but a range of accepted appearances is assumed.
> (The notorious example is
> breaking a conjunct in Devanagari - an author cannot immediately see
> whether it was he or the
> font+renderer that chose to use a half-form.)
You asked about default glyphs for characters; the effects of Indic encoding mechanisms that control conjunct formation is quite another matter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 09:06:39 CST