Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

From: James Kass via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 01:48:23 +0000

Richard Wordingham responded,

>> ... simply using an existing variation
>> selector character to do the job.
>
> Actually, this might be a superior option.

For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and
open-endedness to keep it simple.  Start with VS14 and work backwards
for italic, fraktur, antiqua...  (whatever the preferred order works out
to be).  Or (better yet) start at VS17 and move forward (and change the
rule that seventeen and up is only for CJK).

Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously
considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?
Received on Thu Jan 10 2019 - 19:48:49 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 10 2019 - 19:48:49 CST