Re: Unicode organization is still anti-Serbian and anti-Macedonian
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:50:45 +0100, Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote: I don't like the idea, but one possibility would be to define Serbian glyph styles by adding variation selectors. Variation selectors are already 'defined' for the decimal digits U+0030 to U+0039. It would, however, mess up string comparison operations that weren't smart enough to ignore variation selectors. Also, for the variation selectors to work for the end user, it requires the same technologies whose lack of support is why we are discussing this in the first place, doesn’t it? So, defining the corresponding variation selectors would not make the end user see the correct glyphs earlier. ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: Unicode organization is still anti-Serbian and anti-Macedonian
Hello, Крушевљанин Иван had written: People, do you realize that proper glyphs are needed everywhere and every time, CONSTANTLY, even when American ordinary user chats with German ordinary user about Serbian language Am 2014-02-17 um 00:50 Uhr MEZ schrieb Richard Wordingham: One issue here that I don't know the solution for is how the right glyphs should be chosen for displaying plain text communication. I don't know any general mechanism for, say, specifying that by default Cyrillic text should use Serbian glyphs, CJK characters should use Japanese glyphs and that Cuneiform should use Neo-Assyrian glyphs. This boils down to the fact that, in plain-text communication, the receiver can – and should – chose the appropriate font. This holds, in particular, for classical e-mail. Thence my recent claim that the problem posed by Иван is a mere font issue. In HTML, this is a bit different: The author has control over the fonts (thence over the glyphic style) used for the display, but the reader can normally override the author’s choice. Hence, WWW authors should specify suitable fonts for their respective articvles (or even parts thereof). On paper, or in PDF and other facsimile formaats, the author is entirely responsible for the glyphic style and appearnce, and he should always chose suitable fonts. This is the realm of the solution involving that ‘Gentium Plus srp’ font I had mentioned, recently. May i humbly remind Иван (and all other readers of this thread) that the problem manifests itself (mainly or only) with italic style letters; hence there remains virually no problem with normal (non-italic) style. Best wishes, Otto Stolz ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: Unicode organization is still anti-Serbian and anti-Macedonian
Den 2014-02-17 10:33, skrev Gerrit Ansmann gansm...@uni-bonn.de: I don't like the idea, but one possibility would be to define Serbian glyph styles by adding variation selectors. Variation selectors are already 'defined' for the decimal digits U+0030 to U+0039. It would, however, mess up string comparison operations that weren't smart enough to ignore variation selectors. Also, for the variation selectors to work for the end user, it requires the same technologies whose lack of support is why we are discussing this in the first place, doesn¹t it? So, defining the corresponding variation selectors would not make the end user see the correct glyphs earlier. Still, variation selectors would be, in the text, a very localized indication, independent of (displaying) user's preference settings or language declaration (from the author, in e.g. XML/HTML formats) for the text, and variation selectors are indeed more likely to survive operations like cut-and-paste. There would be a problem of inserting variation selectors at all places where appropriate, though. Spell checking functionality could, in principle at least, help with the latter. /Kent K ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
