On 2018-08-21 08:04, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> On 08/20/2018 03:12 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
>
>>> ... some people who would call a PUA solution either batty > or
>> crazy.
>>
>> I don't think it is either batty or crazy. People can certainly use
>> the PUA to interchange text (assuming that they have downloaded
>> fonts and keyboards or some other input method beforehand), and
>> it can definitely serve as a proof of concept
>> . Plain symbols — with no interactions between them (like changing
>> shape with complex scripts), no combining/non-spacing marks, no case
>> mappings, and so on — are the best possible case for PUA.
>
> It is kind of a bummer, though, that you can't experiment (easily? or
> at all?) in the PUA with scripts that have complex behavior, or even
> not-so-complex behavior like accents & combining marks, or RTL
> direction (here, also, am I speaking true? Is there a block of RTL
> PUA also? I guess there's always RLO, but meh.) Still, maybe it
> doesn't really matter much: your special-purpose font can treat any
> codepoint any way it likes, right?
>
Not all properties come from the font. For example a Zhuang character
PUA font, which supplements CJK ideographs, does not rotate characters
90 degrees, when change from RTL to vertical display of text.
John Knightley
> ~mark
Received on Mon Aug 20 2018 - 19:53:36 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 20 2018 - 19:53:36 CDT