Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:19:22 CST
Quoting Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> email@example.com wrote:
>> > The intent is to allow systems to represent IDSs using single glyphs,
>> > if they can and choose to do so, either through on-the-fly composition
>> > (which will almost certainly be pretty ugly) or through the ligature
>> > mechanisms available in smart fonts. The latter is more likely. In
>> > this case someone with a need to represent a particular unencoded
>> > character (or a set of such) could use a custom font to, at least, make
>> > their text look decent.
>> The intent would seem to allow for the representation through smart fonts.
> I don't think so. For me the encoded IDC are not different from symbols, or
> from mathematical operators.
> So trying to display an IDS differently would be exactly the same kind of
> process as transforming, when rendering, the mathematical operation
> "a*(x+y)" into "a*x+a*y".
> This is not intended, because the operator semantics of the encoded IDC
> characters is NOT defined, and there are several competing usage of these
> IDC characters within several IDS expressions, each with their specific
> semantic and syntax.
> For me they are just encoded for being able to encode the expressions and
> display them linearly, exactly like the "+" and "*" mathematical operators,
> that also don't have semantics by themselves in expressions.
Maybe I haven't understood your point here - like + and *, IDC have
therefore in the sameway one can say x*(y+z) = x*y = X*z the are a set
of equivalents of IDC that allow one to say if two strings match or
not. The inexactness in IDC comes from the range of possible
glyphs/characters a string represents.
Therefore in the same way that 2*(5+3)= 2*5+2*3= 16 which ever you use
you get the right answer - similarly IDS can be manipulate - for some
characters an enhanced IDC system is required.
In the same way that +,-,* and / have their uses so do IDC.
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:21:45 CST