----- Message d'origine -----
De : "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : 9 oct. 2002 17:27
Objet : Re: Fw: Arabic characters and FOP
> patrick andries wrote:
> >>There are also various code points assigned
> >>to ligatures and presentation forms, for example U+FB01, which
> >>could be used in the FO source (at the risk of confusing
> >>hyphenation, spell checkers and others).
>
> > Not a good idea, these code points are deprecated. Ligatures are glyphs
not
> > characters, Unicode is about characters (yes, I know there are
"historical"
> > and compatibility exceptions)
> I should have added "drawing the wrath of the Unicode folks" to the
> risks :)
>
> > Also, some ligatures are purely discretionary (like the ligated fi you
> > mentioned in U+FB01). This behaviour should be driven by some styling
> > information, I would assume ("I want a nice ffl ligature here if present
in
> > the font, and here a ct ligature if present). I do not know of any
> > available means to specify this. The same is true for glyph variants (I
> > would like this particular ampersand variant).
> Variants should probably represented by different fonts. I *hope* fonts
> which have glyph variants for certain characters are rare enough...
They will be more and more of them with OpenType.
> I think ligatures could explicitely prevented by inserting some zero width
> characters (non-breaking spaces or joiners?).
Yes, but this does not allow to select many different behaviours.
> > What are the CSS people doing about this ?
> It seems there are more pressing problems to solve. I'm not familiar
> with recent CSS3 developments though.
Well, it depends on your constituency : OpenType is very valuable to
non-latin scripts and to fine latin typography.
> >>Also, the discussion whether presentation forms have to be
> >>expressed by the characters itself or out of band, for example
> >>as fonts, has never ended.
> >
> > Unicode is quite plain about this, I believe it even states somewhere
that
> > the Arabic presentations forms were a bad idea .
> Yes, Unicode is explicit about this. But there is still a sizeable
> fraction left which thinks otherwise...
Well, as long as they use Unicode ;-) This is also the philosophy adopted
by OpenType.
But we can leave that to later and follow what other standards will be
coming up with for finer controls.
P. Andries
- o - O - o -
Unicode en français : http://hapax.iquebec.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
