RE: Generic Base Letter

From: Vincent Setterholm (vincent@logos.com)
Date: Sun Jun 27 2010 - 15:45:36 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Generic Base Letter"

    That's not terribly helpful, Doug. Do the Principles and Procedures specify that 25CC is the right character to use as a generic base for this type of very common need? If the answer is yes, show me where, and I'll take that back to Microsoft and show them that they're not following the Unicode Standard. If this use of 25CC is not documented, how can one hope that future font designers and software companies will embrace this method? If 25CC is not the official solution to this problem, then should we be thinking about creating a character that has letter-like semantics or should we just declare that 25CC is the right answer and document that in the Standard?

    ________________________________________
    From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell [doug@ewellic.org]
    Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:11 AM
    To: Unicode Mailing List
    Subject: Re: Generic Base Letter

    As far as I know, at least from what the Principles and Procedures
    document said, the inability of a particular version of a particular
    product from a particular vendor to display a given glyph or glyph
    sequence optimally is not justification to add a new character. I could
    be wrong.

    --
    Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
    RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s 
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 27 2010 - 15:49:42 CDT