RE: Generic base characters

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Mon Jul 16 2007 - 14:58:28 CDT

  • Next message: William J Poser: "Amount of Space"

    Asmus Freytag wrote:
    > > While I would appreciate if more fonts supported the fj ligature,
    > > I would expect no rendering system or font to insert a dotted
    > > circle between an f followed by a j just because they don't
    > > support that ligature.
    > Neither would I. It would be a cause for extreme customer
    > dissatisfaction ;-)
    > > Instead they just output an f followed
    > > by a j, though the result sometimes is not perfect (but much
    > > better than getting a dotted circle in-between).
    > >
    > This is because this particular fallback is so eminently
    > preferable in
    > this example - not (only) because Unicode says so, but from
    > the logic of how the script works.

    And this is not script dependent. Any insertion of spurious
    (graphic) characters leads to customer dissatisfaction...

    > Clearly a matter of opinion. The standard suggests that it's
    > better to have some base character, and, in the absence of
    > a higher level protocol, that this should be the NBSP.

    I think that should be the *normal* case also when there is a
    higher-level protocol. Things like "show *ALL* combining characters
    with a dotted circle", "show invisibles", etc. are out of scope
    for this discussion.

    > > That would be better than inserting spurious dotted circles.
    > >
    > I see that you just can't abide by dotted circles ;-)

    I cannot abide insertion of spurious characters in normal
    display mode. And I don't see why anyone else should.

            /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 14:59:35 CDT