From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 05:39:55 CST
Well, "precomposed glyph" is not the same thing as "dynamic combining
mark positioning". While noting that, I also note that NamedSequences are
not at all sufficient for figuring out which character sequences should have
a "precomposed glyph".
Den 2008-11-19 11.44, skrev "Andrew West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> 2008/11/18 Kenneth Whistler <email@example.com>:
>> Andrew West responded:
>> To which my comment is assuredly not. Unicode named sequences
>> are not nor have they ever been intended to serve as
>> guidance for font developers about what glyphs should or should
>> not be supported for fonts.
> UAX 34 (which you wrote) would seem support your confident assertion
> that named sequences are not intended to act as guidance for font
> developers. But I wonder how widely accepted this orthodoxy is amongst
> UTC members.
> For example, on Saturday 10th September 2005 Mark Davis wrote on the
> Unicode list <http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2005-m09/0190.html>
> "I think we are in agreement on named sequences; they should give
> guidance to font developers as to which char sequences may need a
> precomposed glyph."
> Perhaps in the intervening three years his understanding of named
> sequences has changed, but this statement on the public Unicode list
> by the president of the Unicode Consotium has certainly informed my
> understanding of what named sequences are about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 19 2008 - 05:42:31 CST