Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding.
>
> Yes. If necessary, an OpenType font could provide different glyphs
> for different languages to provide optimally looking shapes.
a) So code point-to-glyph mapping in a font is not one-to-one?
b) Then the, say, "German glyph" for U+201C (“) will look like U+201E
(„) (and thus be LEFT and "opening") and the one for U+201D (”) will
look like U+201C (“)? and like U+00AB («) and U+00BB (») for French?
c) Why have U+201E, U+00AB and U+00BB been encoded then?
d) Is U+201F (‟) considered a mistake then? It is only about looks, not
about meaning like a RIGHT HIGH 6 Q... would be.
e) How does the font know which glyph to choose for a given, say, UTF-8
byte sequence? Do we get back to "charset" selection then?
f) Should a code point not encode meaning and thus a "left opening" mark
never be required to be abused as a "right closing" one?
Michael
Received on Fri Apr 27 2012 - 09:52:34 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Apr 27 2012 - 09:52:36 CDT