From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 16:22:14 CDT
On 5/10/2007 1:48 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> As Unicode representative glyphs should be locale-neutral, as much as
> possible, something really distinct should be selected as the primary glyph;
>
The glyph for a character that is used in only one language does not
have to be 'locale-neutral'. On the contrary, it should match the
expectations of its users in the context of the overall design for the
given type style. If the user community covers several locales with
different preferences, then the Unicode Standard must select a glyph
that works best as a representative glyph. Even in that case, there is
no requirement that such a glyph be locale-neutral. It may well be the
one from a very prominent locale.
> a German-language renderer could still use the Ezh-based variant, either by
> direct selection with a variant selector, or though language hints given to
> the renderer (but for multilanguage documents, this will still be a problem,
> notably if German proper names are inserted in non-German documents, this
> usage being the most convincing reason why one will insist on encoding the
> esszet explicitly, and making the distinction very clear, even within
> uppercase titles.)
>
This is all nonsense.
Of course, any implementation can use glyphs designed based on whatever
style they choose. Nobody uses the fonts shown in the Standard, as they
are not for sale. Everybody must use a font designed by whatever font
designer who ultimately is free to design the font the way s/he sees fit
for the given typestyle. There's no need for variation selectors,
context dependent renderings and all this other nonsense.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 10 2007 - 16:23:48 CDT