Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

James Kass wrote:

> 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, …

I have now made, tested and published a font, VS14 Maquette, that uses
VS14 to indicate italic.

https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7831&p=37561#p37561

William Overington
Saturday 12 January 2019

------ Original Message ------
From: "James Kass via Unicode" <unicode_at_unicode.org>
To: unicode_at_unicode.org
Sent: Friday, 2019 Jan 11 At 01:48
Subject: Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

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 Sat Jan 12 2019 - 10:40:53 CST