From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 12:46:48 CDT
If that is a common perception, then we certainly need to correct that
misapprehension.
For general-purpose fonts, the default ignorable code points should be
invisible, just like whitespace characters should be invisible. Specialized
fonts, such as those used for a "Show Hidden" mode or for code charts, may
well want to have visible glyphs for default ignorables, whitespace
characters, controls, confusable characters, and so on, so that people can
see the internals of their text. But those are very specialized cases.
Mark
On 8/24/07, James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Davis wrote,
>
> >A similar annoyance is the fact that so many fonts don't map the
> >default-ignorable code points (like variation selectors) to a zero-width
> >invisible glyph by default.
>
> It's up to individual font developers to weigh the pros and cons
> of including control picture glyphs for such characters, as it
> should be.
>
> Mapping characters like VS to zero-width no outline glyphs would
> mean, for one thing, that applications which give the user the
> option of displaying control characters (and related items) would
> not be able to get appropriate outlines for such characters from
> the font. Opinions on this differ, as discussed on this list in years
> past.
>
> If an OpenType font supports a sequence which involves a VS, the
> user won't see the control picture. If the font doesn't support
> the particular sequence, it can be helpful if that is reflected in
> the display.
>
> Best regards,
>
> James Kass
>
>
>
-- Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 12:49:13 CDT