Re: Variation Selectors

From: Andrew West (
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 07:42:34 CST

  • Next message: Murray Sargent: "RE: Variation Selectors"

    On 28/03/06, David Starner <> wrote:
    > >
    > CJK ideograph variation selectors are more important. It has been
    > established to my satisfaction that no one agrees what is a semantic
    > significance in CJK ideographs, and that there are people who want to
    > distinguish ideographs that aren't distinguished in Unicode. A higher
    > level protocol is very clumsy on a letter by letter basis, and the
    > fact that Unicode doesn't support distinctions that are percieved as
    > necessary has been used to make political hay. Variation selectors
    > provide an easy way to support those people.

    I remain unconvinced, and wait with interest to see exactly what
    ideographic variants will be registered. I do wonder how much demand
    there really will be for this mechanism given that font support will
    be a long time catching up with registered ideographic variants
    (probably font support will be much patchier than if the characters
    were encoded directly -- just look at the font support for maths
    standardized variants).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 29 2006 - 07:45:08 CST