On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Do you mean multiple code points forming one character? I still find the > use of the term 'glyph' confusing here and would prefer to leave it out > if possible, because it doesn't seem that we're really talking about > "The actual, concrete image of a glyph representation having been > rasterized or otherwise imaged onto some display surface."
I used the term glyph because I was talking about what the user is doing with text as presented to him by his U/I. I'm fine with using the character here. In short, I asked: if the user replaces X with Y (at the presentation layer) is it okay to send, instead of sending "replace the code points of X with the code points of Y", the minimal change in the underlying code points (as they appear at the XMPP level), e.g. send "insert combining character Z". I was mostly concerned about sending combining character without all the code point(s) they are intended to be combined with, possibly leading to inappropriate combining with code points of the markup. -- Kurt
