Re: IDC's versus Egyptian format controls

I apologize for apparently misunderstanding the scope of what was being proposed. If a finite set of unencoded Han characters needs to be displayed correctly using IDSes, then the complexity of the look-up tables depends upon how many characters are in the set. It would probably best be handled

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Christoph Päper wrote, > Stuff like typography or emoji can improve the > effectiveness and efficiency of textual communication > a lot. "Given that rich text equals plain text plus added information, the extra information in rich text can be stripped away to reveal the "pure" text underneath."

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

An interesting read: https://docs.microsoft.com/fr-fr/typography/script-development/bengali#reor 2018-02-18 1:30 GMT+01:00 Philippe Verdy : > My opinion about this bug is that Apple's text renderer dynamically > allocates a glyphs buffer only when needed (lazily), but a

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:30 PM Adam Borowski via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > þ or ą count the same as LATIN TURNED CAPITAL LETTER SAMPI WITH HORNS AND TAIL WITH SMALL LETTER X WITH CARON. þ is in Latin-1, and ą is in Latin-A; the first is essential, even in its marginal characters,

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

My opinion about this bug is that Apple's text renderer dynamically allocates a glyphs buffer only when needed (lazily), but a test is missing for the lazy construction of this buffer (which is not needed for most texts not needing glyph substitutions or reordering when a single accessor from the

metric for block coverage

Hi! As a part of Debian fonts team work, we're trying to improve fonts review: ways to organize them, add metadata, pick which fonts are installed by default and/or recommended to users, etc. I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts. It's probably reasonable to

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

On 17/02/18 21:01, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: […] > > I've linked Manish's post on FB as a reply to one of those mainstream > articles that repeatedly calls the conjunct a "single character," > written by a staffer who couldn't be bothered to find out how a writing > system used by 78

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

Heh, I wasn't aware of the word "phala-form", though that seems Bengali-specific? Interesting observation about the vowel glyphs, I'll mention this in the post. Initially I missed this because I hadn't realized that the bengali o vowel crashed (which made me discount this). Thanks! -Manish On

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

I would have liked that your invented term of "left-joining consonants" took the usual name "phala forms" (to represent RA or JA/JO after a virama, generally named "raphala" or "japhala/jophala"). And why this bug does not occur with some vowels is because these are vowels in two parts, that are

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

Manish Goregaokar wrote: FWIW I dissected the crashing strings, it's basically all sequences in Telugu, Bengali, Devanagari where the consonant is suffix-joining (ra in Devanagari, jo and ro in Bengali, and all Telugu consonants), the vowel is not

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 17/02/18 13:43, Christoph Päper via Unicode wrote: […] > Stuff like typography or emoji can improve the effectiveness and efficiency > of textual communication a lot. (And if used badly or maliciously they can > deter it as well.) > Since poor typography can deteriorate our communication as

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

James Kass: > Asmus Freytag wrote: > >>> Words suffice. We go by what people actually say rather than whatever >>> they might have meant. When we read text, we go by what's written. > >> That is a worthy opinion, but not one that is shared, either in principle >> or in lived practice (...) by

Re: IDC's versus Egyptian format controls

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:05:41 -0800 James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > One can argue that once the compound ideograph have been encoded, > > the IDS should no longer be interpreted. > > Wouldn't that break existing data? If this sort of thing