At 12:22 +0200 2002-06-25, Marco Cimarosti wrote: >William Overington wrote: >> Michael Everson raised a very interesting question, which >> caused me to sit and think about it for quite a while. >> >> >At 08:16 +0100 2002-06-24, William Overington wrote: >> > >> >>U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) SURROUNDED BY FIVE BERRIES (RED) >> > >> >As a "character", will this differ from HOLLY LEAF SURROUNDED BY FIVE >> >BERRIES in its semantics? If not, then you are using character coding >> >for a higher level protocol again. >> >> Well, after some thought as to whether it would differ in its >> semantics or >> whether it would not differ in its semantics, I realized that I had no >> intention that HOLLY LEAF SURROUNDED BY FIVE BERRIES would be >> defined as >> well. I suggested U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) SURROUNDED BY >> FIVE BERRIES (RED) as a test item, [...] > >How is an imaginary test case preferable to the real cases which were >already proposed? These were: > >1) Black Ethiopic paragraph separator (U+1368) decorated with little red >dots (suggested by Peter Constable). > >2) Arabic letters with black stems and red dots (suggested by me). > >Both chromatic combinations are actually used (although not in current >modern usage), and they are representative of the whole issue, because they >map in two different ways to the usual monochrome display: > >- In the Ethiopic case (1), the red dots are just decorative, so they should >be dropped in monochrome display. > >- In the Arabic case, just the color of the red dots is decorative, but the >dots themselves are part of the letter, so they should be retained also in >monochrome display. > >Moreover, Peter's and my examples, by using existing characters, do not >require any "PUA agreement" -- or is it mandatory to use the PUA for just >everything? > >_ Marco
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
