> Whatever the fate or merits of the initial proposal we made back in 1998, we > need to work out how these documents are to be encoded, I think. What do you > think? I opine that these items need to be encoded and encoded such that they can be accessed and applied using basic systems rather than needing rare and expensive specialist software. Suppose that plane 4 were introduced with a rule that if a rendering system cannot find in a font a glyph for U+4PQRS then it first looks in the font for a glyph for U+4P000 before using the .notdef glyph. P, Q, R, S are here used as placeholders, each placeholding for a hexadecimal value in the range 0 .. 15. In the example, Q, R and S are not all simultaneously zero. This would allow for a graceful use of a generic glyph indicating the meaning and indicating that there is an underlying encoding that could be rendered using a font that supplies a correct glyph. That would allow for sixteen independent blocks each consisting of one generic glyph and up to 4095 specific glyphs. One of those sixteen blocks could be used for this encoding project. The other blocks would be available for other encoding projects. Maybe smaller blocks and more of them with this particular encoding project having several such blocks ringfenced for it. William Overington 17 March 2015
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
