From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Thu Mar 30 2006 - 03:55:09 CST
On Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 20:20Z, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> 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),
>
> I'd say no.
>
>> for example to give some script-style look? Or am I not?
>>
>> And if I am, am I furthermore allowed [...]
>
> No.
I am sorry, there is no chance I am able to make a point.
I am trying to explain a reasonment that goes point by point. You disagree
with the first point. Since the other are following the first, there is NO
NEED to discuss the further ones; at least until I amend the first in order
for us to agree.
I think I should really resist to post further if I cannot sucessfully
explain my premissae.
> There is no reason for that. I don't expect to ever see that
> seriously supported or seriously suggested.
For the record: I was thinking about OpenType mechanisms, particularly the
type 3 substitutions, as they are used in applications like Adobe InDesign
(perhaps the most widely deployed OT "application" after Uniscribe).
...
> "No" as in "no, I really meant plain text, no missing higher level
> markup".
"m2" is the plain text version of "m<SUP>2</SUP>", isn't it? The one a plain
text search will find in the corresponding HTML corpus, etc.
Or am I again missing something obvious here?
...
>>> 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.
OK, at least this is clear: you consider the two possible renderings to be
different, so this translates to the need for everybody to be forced to
encode at plain text level some differences (i.e. spelling rules, which
remains to be fixed in some cases);
even if the original author does NOT consider there is a semantic
difference;
and even if those spelling difference may prevent or difficult practical
interoperability.
...
> I'm arguing a position that is not necessarily derived directly from
> "the book"...
Sorry, I did not catch this; this raging thread began with your
: This is already very clear, but apparently needs to be pointed out.
(on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006 22:42Z)
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 30 2006 - 03:56:47 CST