From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:20:36 CST
> > Andrew West wrote:
> > > determined by the rendering system (e.g. for Mongolian where
> > > particular glyph forms may be used for writing foreign words)
> > Sounds to me that they deserve separate encoding rather than
> > using the hack of FVS.
> It's not that they are special glyph forms used only for writing
> foreign words. If that were the case, yes they should have been
> encoded as separate characters, and indeed that is the case for U+1827
> MONGOLIAN LETTER EE which represents the form of the letter E used
> exclusively for writing foreign words (it is used contrastively with
> U+1821 MONGOLIAN LETTER E, which is used exclusively for writing
> Mongolian words).
> The sort of case I am thinking of is that in which a letter L may have
> two contextual forms, L1 and L2 which are selected in different
> contexts (e.g. L1 before one set of vowels and L2 before another set
> of vowels). However, when writing a foreign word L2 is always used,
> regardless of context.
You are convincing me even more that these variants should have
been encoded as separate characters, that should have separate
shaping properties. It's not really too late yet, I think, to deprecate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:27:13 CST