At 05:35 PM 6/7/2001 +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>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.
That wasn't the issue, though--it was whether Unicode should treat what are
essentially antique or artistic representations of glyphs as separate
glyphs or not. (Not that it's really for us to decide, but still...) I
really don't think that's our problem--it's a font issue, not a
representation issue. A is A, regardless of whether you're using Times
Roman or Zapf Chancery.
>(Would you recognise Delta-alpha-nu as "Dan" ?)
Probably, but I'm weird that way. :)
> >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,
That's a language issue--if that's the correct way to handle it, fine. It
still seems like a representational issue, though. If the capital version
of an accented character has no accent mark, then it means that the font
used to display the character should show it without the accent. It doesn't
mean that the accent should be removed from the underlying data.
>or even in english I detest spell checkers
>which prefer naive vs naïve role vs rôle.
That's just flat-out wrong.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
