On 2014/10/24 10:21, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Peter is correct.
> The only fonts that should be released to the public are those that are
> Unicode encoded and have the correct shaping tables.
> Unlike the public, the code chart editors for Unicode have tools that
> can correctly handle not only ASCII-hacked fonts as well as PUA-assigned
> fonts, but also fonts that use the "wrong" Unicode encoding (because
> they were designed for an earlier draft with different code point
> assignments). These tools ignore all shaping tables, so the lack of such
> tables isn't an issue.
> The documents created by the code charts editors are no editable in the
> normal sense, so they can be published without causing problems, like
> establishing a de-facto encoding. They don't contain running text in
> these fonts, so there isn't an issue with search - the searchable
> contents are all character names, annotations etc in Latin letters and
> Releasing such fonts to the public would establish a de-facto
> non-sanctioned encoding, because people could create (and interchange)
> running text using them.
The code charts are published as PDFs. In general, text in PDFs can be
copypasted elsewhere. Is there something in place that makes sure that
"wrong" Unicode encodings for glyphs published in code charts don't leak
Unicode mailing list
Received on Fri Oct 24 2014 - 03:18:45 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Oct 24 2014 - 03:18:46 CDT