On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 11:19:41 -0700 John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you use PUA > codepoints for glyph variants in text, you immediately lose all the > benefits of a clean character/glyph distinction: I understand that perfectly well, and now that I've learnt about ZWJ I don't see any reason anymore to represent a ligature in a document by a (PUA or deprecated standard) UV instead of its constituents, connected by ZWJs. OTOH, that's a matter of document coding style, not one of font encoding. I don't see any harm in assigning standard UVs to ligatures other than that users who don't understand the difference between font encoding and text encoding will be encouraged to use them in documents. However, the statement that Unicode is meant as a character encoding instead of as a glyph encoding is clear enough for me. > If you are interested in learning more about font layout features for > glyph variants, and how a smart font format like OpenType works with > the Unicode Standard, you might find this article at the Microsoft > Typography website useful: > > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/developers/opentype/default.htm I'll take a look at it. Thank you for your detailed and helpful response. Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Lotze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.thomas-lotze.de/
