* John Hudson | | My colleagues at the Typography Dept. of the University of Reading and | at the Central School in London have taken to using the term | 'typeform' to refer to a typographic element that, when seen, is | understood to be a single entity, regardless of how it is encoded or | displayed. I think the Norwegian contraction you are describing | probably constitutes a typeform, at least for you as a reader of | Norwegian
I would agree with that. | The thing to keep in mind is that the appearance of a typeform does | not imply anything about how it may be or should be encoded or | displayed. I agree that appearance is not the criterion for how many components it should be made up from. I thought decisions about how to encode characters were (among other things) decided by the semantics of the characters, but I realize I don't know what that means in practice. | If you accept the prevailing argument that there is no need to | encode your contraction as a single, precomposed character in | Unicode, I can still think of half a dozen different ways in which | the typeform could be displayed using varying complexities of glyph | processing. I neither accept nor reject it; I am trying to understand it. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >