Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated)

2002-01-28 Thread Asmus Freytag
At 12:43 PM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote: It sounds like what you are saying, in concrete terms, is that Font #6 at the bottom of: http://www.macchiato.com/utc/variation_selection/variation_selection_f ollowup.htm is conformant. If that is so, then we would have to have an

Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated)

2002-01-27 Thread Asmus Freytag
At 12:33 AM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote: I find it fairly pointless to say that a font supports the variation selection sequence U+03B8, U+FE00 if it does not provide a visual distinction from U+03B8; and such a distinction should be based on the entry description. Thus, of the

Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated)

2002-01-27 Thread Mark Davis \(jtcsv\)
://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr] http://www.macchiato.com - Original Message - From: Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Davis (jtcsv) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 01:36 Subject: Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated) Now this message

Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated)

2002-01-27 Thread Mark Davis \(jtcsv\)
(Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated) At 12:33 AM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote: I find it fairly pointless to say that a font supports the variation selection sequence U+03B8, U+FE00 if it does not provide a visual distinction from U+03B8; and such a distinction should be based