From: John H. Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2008 - 11:06:52 CST
Oh, I'm not so sure. There's a history of recommendations from all
the companies involved in TrueType and Sons as to what would be a good
idea to include in a font. I for one would like to see my company's
fonts and rendering engines provide proper support for all the
combining sequences people actually want/need to use.
In any event, if we're *not* going to add it to Unicode's named
sequences, we really need to put it somewhere, and I don't see anybody
stepping up to the plate with any alternatives.
On Nov 22, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
> Eh? Putting stuff like that into either the OT or AAT *spec* seems
> like a terrible idea: it has nothing whatsoever to do with those
> font formats, per se.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On Behalf Of John H. Jenkins
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:21 PM
> To: unicode Unicode Discussion
> Subject: Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 6:58 PM, email@example.com wrote:
>> In many respects the request for a precomposed letter is a request
>> for recognition that a sequence is used. Whilst maybe not ISO 10646,
>> being in some standard would be logical.
> Maybe the OpenType spec?
> Heck, if somebody can get me a list to start with I may be able to get
> it into the AAT spec.
> John H. Jenkins
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 24 2008 - 11:10:21 CST