Re: Byzantine ekpohonetic neumes: any free font?

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 20:54:43 CST

  • Next message: AndrĂ© Szabolcs Szelp: "Re: Old Hungarian at SC2/WG2"

    As Ken wrote, Unicode at the time had no choice other than to treat all
    of these as opaque codes.

    However, as time moves on, if by any chance there's a group interested
    in defining (and using) a "standard" layout model for these characters,
    two things could happen, assuming first, that such a group effort were
    successful in reaching an agreed upon specification.

    a) such a specification might be (co-)published by the Unicode
    Consortium as its own specification
    b) the Unicode Standard might afterwards reference such a specification
    as a *default* (i.e. recommended for use when you don't know what else
    to assume)

    Either of these two outcomes would be more satisfactory than the current
    state; but unless someone kicks off an effort to define and implement
    such a shared layout model, nothing will change from the current status.

    Would creating such a layout model change the identity of these
    character codes? No, because currently their use is defined only
    relative to an (unspecified) layout model (aka higher level protocol).
    Creating a consistent layout model is therefore fair game.

    Would recommending a default layout model change the character codes?
    Also no, because at the moment, implementers cannot implement these
    characters without choosing some layout model. Nothing restricts the
    choice of layout model, so if all implementers were to follow the same
    recommended layout model (unless the user explicitly requested some
    other protocol) that would be their prerogative. Making a recommendation
    is therefore fair game.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 28 2009 - 21:24:53 CST