RE: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:20:42 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Variation Selectors"

    Antoine Leca wrote:
    > > For typeset modern German text DIEARESIS is consistently used (though
    > > most often via precomposed letters).
    > So, does it mean I am allowed to have/design a font that draws diaeresis as
    > two strokes (not dots),

    Not getting into the swampland of "special purpose", "hand-writing
    mimicking" (etc.) fonts, but staying with regular print fonts:

    I'd say no. The dots could be round, (slightly) oval, square, tilted square,
    or similar. But NOT look like two acute accents, a tilde, nor a macron.

    > for example to give some script-style look? Or am I not?
    > And if I am, am I furthermore allowed to have some option
    > which allows me to
    > select, at *presentation* level, the stroke vs the dots, for the same
    > underlying ä?

    No. There is no reason for that. I don't expect to ever see that
    seriously supported or seriously suggested.

    > Finally, if I am also allowed that, how is it different for the position of
    > the I matra in the rendering of Nagari conjunct NG.K.I ङ्कि?

    I'm not sure what your point is here. But if you mean whether the display
    order should be I:NG:K or NG:I:K, I think that should depend *only*
    on the underlying characters. In this case NG.K.I should have the display
    order as I:NG:K and NG.ZWNJ.K.I should have the display order as NG:I:K,
    regardless of which font is used for display. However, an *editing program*
    may insert ZWNJ at suitable places to avoid moving the I too far (either for
    a specific font, or depend on some compromise data for several
    common fonts). The editing program could even be something that
    interjects itself just prior to display of a text; but should not be part
    of the basic (Indic capable) display engine itself.

    > >>> And m² is not at all the same as m2.
    > >>
    > >> I guess no, although I am not completely sure (particularly
    > >> since I expect
    > >> the second to read "m<SUP>2</SUP>" instead,
    > >
    > > No. While that is an good approach in the general case (for
    > arbitrary
    > > power-to *math* expression), I think it is a bad idea for
    > the SI unit
    > > powers.
    > "No" what? No to the idea to make the 2 a superscript in m2?

    "No" as in "no, I really meant plain text, no missing higher level markup".

    > > The "sounds associated" are completely and totally irrelevant.
    > What is the basic difference between A (Α,А) and E (Ε,Е)? a
    > sound difference
    > (in old Greek, whose exact difference I cannot explain).
    > What is the basic difference between क KA (ক,ਕ,ક,க,ක,က,ก,ក,
    > etc.) and ख KHA?
    > a sound difference (in "Vedic", or whichever the name you gives to the
    > language spoken in the VIIth-Vth c. India), whose
    > almost-exact difference
    > every Sanskrit student can explain.

    I have no idea what you are on about here.

    > > Unicode encodes scripts, not sounds.
    > I thought it was characters.

    Scripts consist of (abstract) characters.

    > > Some characters do have overlapping glyph chapes.
    > And why could it *not* be the case for the Indian scripts?

    When the differences are considered (by at least some) significant
    enough not to be lost. And I think the "level of significance" should
    be about the same for all scripts, not making higher demands when
    it comes to Indic scripts (for instance).

    > > *You* are saying that there are two "camps" (your word) for at least
    > > one of the Indic scripts as to how to display some letters. That
    > > sounds very much like a difference worthy of more than a font
    > > change.
    > I agree it sounds very much this worth.
    > However, TUS4, page 248 ss., describes those differences (without much
    > details), but does not mention any difference in codepoints.
    > So as a result, I am confused when one says to me that such
    > differences SHALL be recorded at codepoint level.

    I'm arguing a position that is not necessarily derived directly from
    "the book"...

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:27:41 CST