From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:20:42 CST
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
> > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 29 2006 - 14:27:41 CST