From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2007 - 12:35:58 CDT
Brian Wilson wrote:
> I guess I don't understand why these specifications can't be encoded in the
> most basic level. If the blank base characters for Thai and Lao are defined
> and documented in unicode then font developers will be able to include them
> across platforms.
Certainly if the preferred base characters for a script were documented in the script
description section of the Unicode Standard, that would let software developers
implementing those scripts know that they need to include support for those characters.
This isn't a matter of encoding, per se, but of documentation. In most cases, these
characters are going to be generic, i.e. not script-specific. So it is a question of
documenting what characters outside of a given script block might be expected to occur in
text in that script.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC email@example.com We say our understanding measures how things are, and likewise our perception, since that is how we find our way around, but in fact these do not measure. They are measured. -- Aristotle, Metaphysics
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 12 2007 - 12:40:30 CDT