I hope I am not completely mistaken in this "request for comments", but
after some research on the unicode web site this seemingly simple issue
just seems to be missed.
As the explanation of the issue depends on display very much I just had
to put it in a PDF document (690 KiB) to be found here:
I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding.
On 27 Apr 2012, at 10:17, Michael Probst wrote:
> I hope I am not completely mistaken in this "request for comments", but
> after some research on the unicode web site this seemingly simple issue
> just seems to be missed.
>
>
> I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding.
Yes. If necessary, an OpenType font could provide different glyphs
for different languages to provide optimally looking shapes.
Werner
> On 27 Apr 2012, at 10:17, Michael Probst wrote:
> > As the explanation of the issue depends on display very much I just
> had
> > to put it in a PDF document (690 KiB) to be found here:
> >
> >http://www.hairetikos.info/Ux2018_is_not_RIGHT_HIGH_6.pdf
Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 11:11
Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding.
>
> Yes. If necessary, an OpenType font could provide different glyphs
> for different languages to provide optimally looking shapes.
a) So code point-to-glyp
On 27 Apr 2012, at 12:53, Michael Probst wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 11:11 +0100 schrieb Michael Everson:
>> I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding.
>
> So it is the intention of unicode to only allow completely neutral (upright)
> quotation marks or requir
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Michael Probst wrote:
> http://www.hairetikos.info/Ux2018_is_not_RIGHT_HIGH_6.pdf
This is well known. Please read this old thread:
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m06/thread.html#30
A few fonts from Microsoft/Monotype are broken:
http://www.user.uni-hannover.
>> Yes. If necessary, an OpenType font could provide different glyphs
>> for different languages to provide optimally looking shapes.
>
> a) So code point-to-glyph mapping in a font is not one-to-one?
With OpenType fonts, this is correct.
> b) Then the, say, "German glyph" for U+201C (“) will l
Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the problem
is often that there's no specification as to what certain languages
need, so that fonts cannot be expected to provide the correct
implementation.
When Unicode was first created, the fact that one and the same quotation
m
> So, one of the most useful things that could come of the current
> discussion, would be a thorough documentation of the glyph
> variations needed to support both English and German for the same
> quotation mark characters.
For German, it's quite simple: The opening quotes must visibly start
at
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 09:29 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > So, one of the most useful things that could come of the current
> > discussion, would be a thorough documentation of the glyph
> > variations needed to support both English and German for the same
> > quotation mark characters.
"E
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> So, one of the most useful things that could come of the current
> discussion, would be a thorough documentation of the glyph variations
> needed to support both English and German for the same quotation mark
> characters.
Actually, the case is quite si
FYI, we have gathered in CLDR on usage of characters in different
languages, including quotation marks (and those to use for embeddings). It
is at
http://unicode.org/repos/cldr-tmp/trunk/beta-charts/by_type/misc.characters.html
. (The page takes a while to load because of the exemplar information
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
> It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph
> variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been encoded
> already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it hasn't, it
> should be now.
I think t
Michael Probst wrote:
> It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph
> variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been
> encoded already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it
> hasn't, it should be now.
I'm kind of surprised that I haven't been
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Michael Probst wrote:
>
> > It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph
> > variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been
> > encoded already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it
> > hasn
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Andreas Prilop:
> Actually, the case is quite simple.
Alas, it isn't :-) Or why is it that the discussion you pointed me at
(Danke!) quickly strayed from the topic, got hotter than useful and
seems to have lead to no result regarding the original pro
Michael Probst wrote:
> The real error may be that U+0022 is not
> neutral in relation to design of the rest of the font.
U+0022 is supposed to be entirely neutral from a vertical standpoint.
See NamesList.txt:
> 0022 QUOTATION MARK
>* neutral (vertical), used as opening or closing qu
Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 18:01 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> 2) There might be different quotation characters within a document,
> meaning different things. In other words, there are documents
> where the distinction between various quotation marks is more than
> a glyph variant
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:04:01AM -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Certain font designers have made these directional for decades, leading
> to the hideous ``convention'' which some people seem to love, but which
> is a classic example of abusing character encoding to achieve
> typographical results.
T
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 23:43 -0700 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the problem
> is often that there's no specification as to what certain languages
> need, so that fonts cannot be expected to provide the correct
> implementation.
>
> W
On 5/2/2012 8:33 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 23:43 -0700 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the problem
is often that there's no specification as to what certain languages
need, so that fonts cannot be expected to provide
On 5/2/2012 5:20 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Andreas Prilop:
Actually, the case is quite simple.
Alas, it isn't :-) Or why is it that the discussion you pointed me at
(Danke!) quickly strayed from the topic, got hotter than useful and
seems to have l
> So if two glyphs have enough "visual character" to be used in one
> document to express two different meanings, then they should be
> encoded as different characters?
Yes, more or less. However, quotation characters need language
tagging or something like that; you certainly don't want to have
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> the `babel' package
and later:
> Typographically correct quotation is a quite difficult topic.
which I found ironic.
>> So if two glyphs have enough "visual character" to be used in one
>> document to express two different meanings, then they should be
>> encoded as d
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 09:09 -0700 schrieb David Starner:
> I think there's exactly zero chance that Unicode will separate two
> characters that have been unified for the entire history of Unicode
> and used for terabytes, possibly petabytes, of data. Like many of the
> things inherited from A
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 23:43 -0700 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the
> problem is often that there's no specification as to what certain
> languages need, so that fonts cannot be expected to provide the
> correct implementation.
Strange
Sometimes you are not free to choose what you would like.
One thing that's off the table is a new character code.
The reason for that categorical statement is that there is too much data
and software out that uses the existing character codes. Throwing a new
character into the mix will just cr
Am Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2012 um 10:03 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
AF> ... The time to
AF> create a special character code for German quotation marks is passed.
This is especially true as other standards refer to the way the quotes
are encoded now.
For instance, the new German keyboard standard DIN 2137:
Am Mittwoch, den 02.05.2012, 13:46 -0700 schrieb Doug Ewell:
> Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> So if two glyphs have enough "visual character" to be used in one
> >> document to express two different meanings, then they should be
> >> encoded as different characters?
> >
> > Yes, more or less.
>
>
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> a document that not only describes the "issues"
> but provides a suggested solution.
Suggested solution:
Correct the typefaces Comic Sans MS, Tahoma, Verdana
in the same way as the typeface Trebuchet MS has been corrected:
Make U+2018 a rotational image
On 3 May 2012, at 17:53, Andreas Prilop wrote:
> Suggested solution:
>
> Correct the typefaces Comic Sans MS, Tahoma, Verdana
> in the same way as the typeface Trebuchet MS has been corrected:
> Make U+2018 a rotational image of U+2019.
> Make U+201B a mirrored image of U+2019.
>
> Make a clear
Andreas Prilop wrote:
Suggested solution:
Correct the typefaces Comic Sans MS, Tahoma, Verdana
in the same way as the typeface Trebuchet MS has been corrected:
Make U+2018 a rotational image of U+2019.
Make U+201B a mirrored image of U+2019.
Make a clear statement in the Unicode standard:
U+20
Am Donnerstag, den 03.05.2012, 23:00 -0600 schrieb Doug Ewell:
> These suggestions are constructive and practical,
Agreed :-)
> and make a lot more sense than trying to get a new character encoded,
I wasn't trying to, but gathering arguments. The character(s) are not
new, the encoding(s) would
Am Donnerstag, den 03.05.2012, 01:03 -0700 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> Sometimes you are not free to choose what you would like.
Certainly not :-)
> One thing that's off the table is a new character code.
>
> The reason for that categorical statement is that there is too much
> data and software o
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Michael Probst wrote:
> This is *not* about Verdana etc. but rather
> http://www.hairetikos.info/afinalquestion.pdf
It seems to me that you have a problem with TeX, not with Unicode.
You should complain in a forum/mailing list dealing with TeX.
The following thread might be of interest.
http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2568
Within it is the following sentence that I devised to use eleven punctuation
characters.
“I saw Jane at the supermarket, in the fruit section: she said ‘Is John still
researching?’ and bought a p
37 matches
Mail list logo
