Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

From: David Starner (
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 17:17:44 CDT

  • Next message: verdy_p: "Re: A Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add VariationÚ Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)"

    On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin <> 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