On 5/2/2012 5:20 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Andreas Prilop:
Actually, the case is quite simple.
Alas, it isn't :-) Or why is it that the discussion you pointed me at
(Danke!) quickly strayed from the topic, got hotter than useful and
seems to have lead to no result regarding the original problem?
A problem exists *only* with these four typefaces:
Courier (New), Comic Sans MS, Tahoma, Verdana
All, *All*, *ALL* other typefaces agree that
-- U+2018 is a rotated apostrophe U+2019
-- U+201B is a mirrored apostrophe U+2019
Only the above four typefaces have wrong glyphs at position U+2018,
namely glyphs that actually belong into U+201B.
What I want to show (and what is meant here, as far as I understand it)
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m06/0030.html
What should have followed that post is an actual bit of proposed text
(and a graphic) to go into chapter 6.2.
The editors of the standard are quite happy to smooth out rough bits and
to re-create graphics to the style
of the publication, but they are not domain expert on every bit of
language and script-specific usage.
Therefore, especially in an issue like this, it's the domain experts who
need to provide the suggested
draft text and graphics.
The same fate will befall this discussion, unless someone whether
Michael or Otto steps forward and
provides a document that not only describes the "issues" but provides a
suggested solution.
A./
is something different. I suspected and tried to anticipate this by
including a Verdana example, and only made the explanation more complex.
Then again, Kenneth Whistler surmised that U+201F would probably have
got no code point in 2006
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m06/0300.html
so today U+201B and U+201F would possibly not be encoded at all but
treated as glyph variants. The real error may be that U+0022 is not
neutral in relation to design of the rest of the font.
Michael
