RE: Variation Selectors

From: Murray Sargent (
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 09:35:18 CST

  • Next message: Séamas Ó Brógáin: "Re: How to encode abbreviations [Was: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs]"

    For proper math support, a font needs not only the mathematical alphabetics and operators, but also many layout parameters and a myriad glyph variants. It's not easy to create a math font, but you'll see an amazing one soon (you already did if you saw my Unicode Conference talk this month :-)


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [] On Behalf Of Andrew West
    Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:43 AM
    To: Unicode Discussion
    Subject: 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 - 09:45:17 CST