On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:
> > A minor edit to to clarify this for multiple characters forming one > > glyph, is to add "incompletely formed glyphs" to the list in the > > paranthesis. Would that make sense? > > 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 think it's > best if RTT talks about characters and code points. > Yes -- that is what I meant. I'll replace the word glyph with character. The problem is I am trying to be consistent with what "character" means. RFC6365 has multiple interpretations for the word "character", too. Is it a code point? Is it a displayable character? Is it the 'char' data type (which can be 1, 2 or 4 bytes each depending on platform)? Therefore, I like to avoid using the word "character" outside the context of a Unicode code point, this is how XEP-0301 defines a character as. However, I've now removed the word "glyph" from the document. Thanks, Mark Rejhon
