RE: Level of Unicode support required for various languages

From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:19:22 CST

  • Next message: vunzndi@vfemail.net: "Re: Component Based Han Ideograph Encoding (WAS: Level of Unicode support required for various languages)"

    Quoting Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>:

    > vunzndi@vfemail.net wrote:
    >> > The intent is to allow systems to represent IDSs using single glyphs,
    >> > if they can and choose to do so, either through on-the-fly composition
    >> > (which will almost certainly be pretty ugly) or through the ligature
    >> > mechanisms available in smart fonts. The latter is more likely. In
    >> > this case someone with a need to represent a particular unencoded
    >> > character (or a set of such) could use a custom font to, at least, make
    >> > their text look decent.
    >> >
    >>
    >> The intent would seem to allow for the representation through smart fonts.
    >
    > I don't think so. For me the encoded IDC are not different from symbols, or
    > from mathematical operators.
    > So trying to display an IDS differently would be exactly the same kind of
    > process as transforming, when rendering, the mathematical operation
    > "a*(x+y)" into "a*x+a*y".
    >
    > This is not intended, because the operator semantics of the encoded IDC
    > characters is NOT defined, and there are several competing usage of these
    > IDC characters within several IDS expressions, each with their specific
    > semantic and syntax.
    >
    > For me they are just encoded for being able to encode the expressions and
    > display them linearly, exactly like the "+" and "*" mathematical operators,
    > that also don't have semantics by themselves in expressions.
    >

    Maybe I haven't understood your point here - like + and *, IDC have
    equivalence

    therefore in the sameway one can say x*(y+z) = x*y = X*z the are a set
    of equivalents of IDC that allow one to say if two strings match or
    not. The inexactness in IDC comes from the range of possible
    glyphs/characters a string represents.

    Therefore in the same way that 2*(5+3)= 2*5+2*3= 16 which ever you use
    you get the right answer - similarly IDS can be manipulate - for some
    characters an enhanced IDC system is required.

    In the same way that +,-,* and / have their uses so do IDC.

    Regards
    John

    -------------------------------------------------
    This message sent through Virus Free Email
    http://www.vfemail.net

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:21:45 CST