Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I think I'd agree there. Different versions of a glyph are more a matter of
>art and handwriting styles, and that's not really something we ought to get
>involved in.
But the human sitting in front of the machine cannot see the bit pattern,
they can only push the available keys and look at the presented glyphs.
There is indeed a similarity to locales - without a choice of glyph being
presented then asian texts will be as readable to a native as if
english was rendered in cyrillic or greek alphabets.
(Would you recognise Delta-alpha-nu as "Dan" ?)
>The european equivalent would be to have many versions of "A",
>so we could represent the different ways it was drawn in various
>illuminated manuscripts. That seems rather excessive.
Not entirely true. Consider German "ß" vs "ss" or French not normally putting
accents on upper-case vowels, or even in english I detest spell checkers
which prefer naive vs naïve role vs rôle.
>
> Dan
>
>--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
>Dan Sugalski even samurai
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
> teddy bears get drunk
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
who is looking for a new job see http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/
