On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:14:55AM +0100, Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2011-07-15, Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2011, at 17:03, Doug Ewell wrote: > > > >> 1. Graphic symbols for control characters are needed so writers can write > >> about the control characters themselves using plain text. > > > > This does not seem so unreasonable. The RTL and LTR overrides > > *function* on the text when inserted into text. So you can't use > > those with glyphs in a font to represent for example the UCS > > dotted-boxes-with-letters, because they are control characters and > > will affect the text. > > Wouldn't it be more economical to encode a single UNICODE ESCAPE > CHARACTER which forces the following character to be interpreted as a > printable glyph rather than any control function?
I already thought about this but this would probably mean that algorithms (like the Unicode BiDi Algorithm) would have to be changed. -- Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek> Jabber: but...@jabbim.cz ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EA 355:001 DU DU DU DU EA 355:002 TU TU TU TU EA 355:003 NU NU NU NU NU NU NU EA 355:004 NA NA NA NA NA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
