From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 17:17:44 CDT
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
> DS> ... I don't see why
> DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061
> DS> is the character.
> This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a
> variation sequence on a base character by a higher-level protocol,
> which must be overridable in some way.
I don't see why it must be overridable. By not including a variation
sequence, you've left it up to the system to pick a glyph. Whatever
glyph it picks, you have no right to complain. There is no reason for
the system to do anything with the unspecific form variation sequence.
-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 17:25:04 CDT