On 6 April 2017 at 11:32, Rebecca Bettencourt <beckie...@gmail.com> wrote:
We do have to provide Unicode with fonts, I believe. We can use an existing > C64 font, such as Pet Me. Or, we can create a new font with vectorized > versions of the characters. > Are there any existing C64 fonts with vectorised glyphs? > Then there is the issue of what to do with the text colour and style > selectors. PETSCII has characters that indicate a colour change as well as > reverse video. At least the reverse video one is important, as it's being > used to construct new characters. For example, PETSCII only has a single > character "half block" (top part filled). The way you represent a half > block with the bottom part filled is to use the reverse video together with > the former. > >> >> It would probably make more sense to represent the reversed symbols as >> separate code points? >> > > I would actually leave the color-change and reverse-video characters to a > higher-level protocol. > For colour change, I definitely agree. The reverse video case is a bit different since the resulting characters are very much separate symbols by themselves. I think I need to take a closer look at existing C64 textual content to see how it was actually being used in real life. I do recall that reverse video was heavily used in file names, so there is definitely an argument for introducing “COMBINING PETSCII REVERSE VIDEO”. It would be unfortunate if higher-level markup is required to accurately represent the name of a file stored on a C64 floppy disc. Regards, Elias
