From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:31:18 EDT
--- Karl Ove Hufthammer <huftis@bigfoot.com> wrote: >
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 was thinking about this too and I think it would be
worth the work to support accented etc glyphs in an
abstract way. So we'd do as you suggest and also
vice versa: if the document specified 'a' + '°' but
the font has no combining characters but does have
'å'.
> > I would think at this stage that a "compatibility"
> > normalization would be more suitable at this early
> > stage
>
> No, compatibility normalization *loses* important
> information.
If we agree that the "abstract character" model above
is doable then I agree with you. It's a bit more work
but I think not too hard and the benefits are good.
Andrew Dunbar.
> --
> Karl Ove Hufthammer
=====
http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:32:52 EDT