Re: Controls, gliphs, flies, lemonade

From: QSJN 4 UKR <>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:01:34 +0300

Yes, i had written 'egyptian hieroglyphs' but how about banal CJK? We
still have no way to insert nonstandard ideogramme into text. Isn't it
a simple task? There are just 20 basic strokes :) ok, 500 basic
symbols. Or 200000? However we can't combine it together :( !
Unicode is to complex standard. I even don't know how many properties
have one character (did you know about unicode-coloured characters? -
there was somewhere that my theme in this list), how can i know how my
application has to render 'plain' text with bidi, noncanonicordered
diacritics, and korean script. Right, i don't know that. And my
application render it in my way, some else in another (a_a / aa_ -
double comb. char., sure you seen that), so we have no standard at
Off course, i can learn this complex standard, but what for? Most of
them i never use.
There must be a simpler system, not so many aprior data for it work.

2011/9/13, John H. Jenkins <>:
> QSJN 4 UKR 於 2011年9月12日 下午9:06 寫道:
>> I know it is sacred cow, but let me just ask, how do you people think.
>> Is it good or bad that the codepoint means all about character: what,
>> where, how... (see theme)? Maybe have we separate graph & control
>> codes - wellnt have many problems, from banal ltr (( rtl instead ltr
>> (rtl) to placing one tilde above 3, 4, anymore letters, or egyptian
>> hierogliphs in rows'n'cols. Conceptually, I mean! Each letter in text
>> is at least two codepoints ("what" and "where") in file. Is it stupid?
>> Trying to render the text we anyway must generate this data.
> It's not really a sacred cow per se, but it is a fundamental architectural
> decision which would be pretty much impossible to revisit now.
> Almost all writing is done using a small set of script-specific rules which
> are pretty straightforward. English, for example, is laid out in horizontal
> lines running left-to-right and arranged top-to-bottom of the writing
> surface. East Asian languages were traditionally laid out in vertical lines
> running from top-to-bottom and arranged right-to-left on the writing
> surface.
> Because some scripts are right-to-left and ltr and rtl text can be freely
> intermingled on a single line, Unicode provides plain-text directionality
> controls. The preference, however, is to use higher-level protocols where
> possible.
> As for the scripts which are inherently two-dimensional (using
> hieroglyphics, mathematics, and music), it's almost impossible to provide
> "plain text" support for them. There is too much dependence on additional
> information such as the specifics of font and point size. Because of this,
> the UTC decided long ago that layout for such scripts absolutely must be
> done using a higher-level protocol to handle all the details.
> There are occasionally suggestions that positioning controls be added to
> plain text in Unicode, but so far the UTC has felt that the benefits are too
> marginal to overcome its reasons for having left them out in the first
> place.
> =====
> Hoani H. Tinikini
> John H. Jenkins
Received on Tue Sep 20 2011 - 22:06:47 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 20 2011 - 22:06:49 CDT