From: Karl Ove Hufthammer (huftis@bigfoot.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 13:14:24 EDT
Andrew Dunbar <hippietrail@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:20020423111827.32208.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com:
> Normalization Form C means "fully composed"
> characters
Well, not always (Unicode 3.2), but you're basically right.
> - I think fonts are currently rare that
> would support all characters we need fully composed.
Then the renderer should superimpose glyphs. Exactly how the
abstract characters are written (pre- or decomposed) isn't
important. E.g. if a font doesn't have an 'å' glyph, but an 'a'
and a '°' glyph, the 'å' character could be displayed by
superimposing these two glyphs.
> I would think at this stage that a "compatibility"
> normalization would be more suitable at this early
> stage
No, compatibility normalization *loses* important information.
-- Karl Ove Hufthammer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 13:16:02 EDT