Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters

From: Kent Karlsson (kent.karlsson14@comhem.se)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 05:39:55 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"

    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".

        /kent k

    Den 2008-11-19 11.44, skrev "Andrew West" <andrewcwest@gmail.com>:

    > 2008/11/18 Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com>:
    >>
    >> Andrew West responded:
    >>
    >>> <http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamedSequences.txt>
    >>
    >> 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.
    >
    > Andrew
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 19 2008 - 05:42:31 CST