Juuitchan wrote: > Should there not be a "UniGlyph" encoding, for use by font > designers, etc., which would encode these glyph variants?
I don't know if I would call it an "encoding" but, yes, there should be such a thing, IMHO. But it only makes sense for a minimalist rendering of Unicode, and with a well-defined typographic style. A "Uniglyph" could be the basis for, e.g., implementing Unicode on very low resource platforms. But such a thing could be useless (and perhaps dangerous) for applications needing more sophisticated rendering and greater typographic freedom. A "UniGlyph" thing would probably duplicate the functionality of existing smart fonts, without delivering any real advantage. As you say, however, such a minimalist approach could serve as a checklist for all other systems: if a feature is *even* in "Uniglyph", you must have it too. I see a second use for such a thing: to act as a bridge between abstract characters and glyphs, in order to allow a more visual editing for complex scripts. But, in this case, also smart fonts should be redesigned to work on this "UniGlyph", rather than on pure Unicode: quite an unlikely change to expect in 2002. _ Marco
