RE: Glyphs for German quotation marks

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Sat Jun 17 2006 - 05:10:00 CDT

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: U+0345 COMBINING GREEK YPOGEGRAMMENI not usable in other scripts as "hook below"?"

    John Hudson wrote:

    > >>Yes, and to solve the German problem you want to force
    > >>everyone else to perform this kind of text encoding hacks.
    > > No, not at all. Only you seem to suggest that.
    > Andreas did specifically say that if e.g. English users want
    > the form of opening quotation
    > mark used for U+2018 in Verdana then they should encode the
    > opening quote as U+201B. I'm
    > not just suggesting that. This is what he wrote:
    > Actually, I have seen such quotation marks in English-language
    > books printed in Britain and the USA. But, as I wrote, they are
    > certainly not preferred. *If* you want such quotation marks,
    > then please use U+201B for them!

    I don't see any resemblance with what Andreas wrote and your
    (gross mis)interpretation.

    > >>or providing language-specific glyph variants.
    > > No thanks. That is bound to fail.
    > There is no reason why it should other than laziness on the
    > part of application
    > developers. There has been a robust font-side solution for a
    > decade now and there are
    > thousands of OpenType fonts language system tags and <locl>
    > variant lookups.

    As you say, applications tend not to implement that (for good reasons).

    In any case, font setting is inherently fragile, and is therefore

    > >>which has the same encoding as the Arabic comma but is a
    > >>mirrored form of the Latin comma. There is neither a need nor a
    > >>desire for separate encoding for these glyph variants.
    > > I think very much that is desired. Otherwise we could use just plain
    > > ASCII comma for the Arabic comma, Armenian comma, and Ideographic
    > > comma.
    > Let me rephrase: there appears to have been no interest from
    > Sindhi computing experts
    > (there is an active community) in proposing a Sindhi
    > character for encoding. There are

    Then I suggest you help them by saying that this is not a glyph variant,
    and either propose a new character or propose making ASCII comma bidi
    mirrored (but I don't think the latter is the best option).

    > also differences to Sindhi shaping of some Arabic letters,
    > but there also seems to be
    > little interest from the user community in proposing these as
    > separate characters.

    ArabicShaping properties are normative, so if "shaping" here refers
    to joining behaviour one would either need to use ZWJ/ZWNJ or
    some other ("new") characters. It is NOT a matter of some fonts
    implementing different joining behaviour. (If "shaping" here refers
    to something else, then please say what it refers to.)

    > especially fonts for a screen environment, have chosen to use
    > what even the Unicode
    > standard identifies as a 'glyph variant' of U+2018 *as* a
    > glyph form for U+2018.

    I think it would be better if 201B was NOT identified as a glyph
    variant of anything, and that for 2018 one never use the form of 201B.

            /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 17 2006 - 05:17:16 CDT