RE: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs

From: Kent Karlsson (kent.karlsson14@comhem.se)
Date: Thu Mar 30 2006 - 14:37:38 CST

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "User-Selectable Presentation (was: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs)"

    > I am sorry, there is no chance I am able to make a point.

    Well, I have found your arguments quite flawed.

    > > 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).

    Not for displaying diaeresis a double acute I really do hope.

    > > 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);

    You claim there are opposing "camps" of users. And there are
    numerous mentions of orthographic reforms for Indic scripts
    (both in TUS and on the Indic list).

    > even if the original author does NOT consider there is a semantic
    > difference;

    Semantics is not the same as spelling. "Color" is the same as "Colour"
    semantically/phonetically but are not spelled the same.

    > and even if those spelling difference may prevent or
    > difficult practical interoperability.

    Different spellings of "the same" words in English is a difficulty...
    And yet we overcome...

    > > 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)

    You've been putting words (of your misunderstanding) in my mouth,
    and now you quote me out of context. That does not help your arguments.
    (The context for that quote was regarding the use 0D4C and 0D57 only.)

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 30 2006 - 14:46:12 CST