On 2/9/2019 1:40 PM, Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:10 PM Asmus Freytag via Unicode
> <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>
>>> I hope though that all the scripts can be supported with more or less
>>> compromises, e.g. like it would appear in a crossword. But maybe not.
>> See other messages: not.
> For the crossword analogy, I can see why it's not good. But this
> doesn't mean there aren't any other ideas we could experiment with.
"all...scripts" is the issue. We know how to handle text for all
scripts and what complexities one has to account for in order to do
that. You can back off some corner cases or (slightly) degrade things,
but even after you are done with that, there will be scripts where the
"more or less compromises" forces by the design parameters you gave will
mean an utterly unacceptable display.
That said, there are scripts that had "passable" typewriter
implementations and it may be possible to tweak things to approach that
level support. Don't know for sure, it depends on the details for each
script.
>
> Or do you mean to say that because it can't be made perfect, there's
> no point at all in partially improving? I don't think I agree with
> that.
It's more a question of being upfront with your goal.
At this point I understand it as accepting some design parameters as
fundamental and seeing whether there are some tweaks that allow more
scripts to work with or to "survive" given the constraints.
That's not a totally useless effort, but it is a far cry from Unicode's
universal support for ALL writing systems.
A./
PS: also we have been seriously hijacking a thread related to bidi
>
>
> e.
>
Received on Sat Feb 09 2019 - 17:44:05 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Feb 09 2019 - 17:44:05 CST