Re: (R), (c) and

From: Jukka K. Korpela <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:06:51 +0200

2014-12-18, 12:31, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:

> I wonder if it's by accident that 00AE, 00A9, and 2122 are not listed
> as standard variant sensitive chars.

Why would that be an accident any more than not listing 100,000 other
characters there? Or to put it more constructively, why should they be
listed? What glyph variation needs to be expressible in plain text?

> OSX seems to threat them as such, so adding FE0F will force them to be
> an image,

That does not sound correct. Variation selectors should either affect
the choice of a glyph or be ignored, and their effects should be limited
to characters designated to be affected by them.

> but I know there are few quirks in this behavior

To me, the behavior as such sounds like a quirk.


Unicode mailing list
Received on Thu Dec 18 2014 - 05:07:52 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Dec 18 2014 - 05:07:52 CST