Re: New FAQ page

From: Andrew West (
Date: Fri Oct 12 2007 - 06:20:00 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: New FAQ page"

    On 11/10/2007, Mark Davis <> wrote:

    [in response to a graphic of ∩ + ︀ = ∩ posted by James]

    > So as said before, for normal usage, your first line is not correct.

    The key here is "normal usage". How can you define what normal usage
    is, and how do you know whether James' usage of this text string is
    normal or not?

    There is a similar graphic in Figure 13-4 of TUS
    <>, which was
    generated using standard fonts and software. If the font did not have
    a glyph for FVS1 or if the software did not allow it to be displayed
    then it would have been much harder to create the graphic. Creating
    such graphics may not be "normal usage" but it is a valid and probably
    quite common usage, and I am glad that at least some fonts and
    software support such usages.

    And wherein does your perceived not correctness lie? With the font
    designer (e.g. James) for mapping VS1 to a visible glyph, or with the
    rendering system (e.g. Uniscribe) for not filtering out VS1 when not
    part of a valid variation sequence, or with the application (e.g.
    Notepad, where I can repro this behaviour) for not crashing when the
    user attempts to view default ignorable codepoints, or with Unicode
    for defining variation selectors in the first place ?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 12 2007 - 06:23:52 CDT