Re: Control picture glyphs

From: James Kass (
Date: Tue Sep 04 2007 - 07:49:27 CDT

  • Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: Control picture glyphs"

    Asmus Freytag wrote (2007/08/29)

    >> Generally, the application is *required* to use a glyph from the
    >> selected font, if the selected font has a glyph mapped with the
    >> character being called. The application must rely on the font --
    >> that's what fonts are for.
    >That's actually not the reality.

    Yes, it is. I was speaking generally.

    > And where application vendors have
    >deviated from that precept, it has often been done for good and solid
    >usability reasons - not the least of which is to work around
    >inconsistent implementations by fonts.


    >> Asmus is correct, though, in this section. Applications can substitute
    >> pictures in lieu of font-specific control picture character glyphs. The
    >> choice is best left to the application designer. (T.U.S. 5.0 p. 508 for
    >> more detail.)
    >And the depiction of an unsupported VS falls into that realm; whether
    >the authors of TUS have managed to get around to spell that out or not
    >is immaterial.

    Agreed. The depiction of an unsupported VS falls into that realm;
    where choice belongs to the application designers.

    > ...
    >The design of the VS is predicated on that it expresses *ignorable*
    >differences. Therefore, forcing it to become visible to all readers, by
    >default, is missing the point entirely. This is true whether it's an
    >unsupported one or and undefined sequence. Again, the only exceptions
    >are the show hidden modes, which provide a meta-view of the text.

    I'd consider "ignorable" to be something which may be ignored
    rather than something which must be ignored. Also, I'm not trying
    to force anything on anybody.

    From T.U.S. 5.0 p. 545,
         "Thus, if the variation sequence is not supported, the variation
         selector should be invisible and ignored."

    Sounds like a recommendation rather than a mandate.

    Continuing the quote,
         "As with all default ignorable characters, this does not preclude
         modes or environments where the variation selectors should be
         given visible appearance."

    Well, here's an environment scenario: Windows XP with up-to-date
    Uniscribe with a plain-text editor using an operator-selected font.

    If the user doesn't like that particular environment, the user may
    select a different font.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 04 2007 - 07:52:29 CDT