On 28/11/2003 01:57, Andrew C. West wrote:
...
These are all specialised cases that are strictly necessary in order to
represent the respective scripts. General text formatting such as underlining or
arbitrary encirclement of characters (or cartouchement of ideographs which is
common in traditional Chinese texts) is considered to be "rich text" and beyond
the scope of Unicode. Whenever I read threads like this one (and they resurface
with monotonous regularity) I do wonder whether the participants have ever read
TUS Section 2.2 "Unicode Design Principles".
Andrew
Andrew, I agree with Jill that there is no need to get ad hominem. You
will see that I anticipated your objection. I listed several cases where
a combining mark might need to be associated with a group of characters,
and suggested that some might be dealt with as "rich text". You have
confirmed what I wrote. Some of my cases have already been encoded in
Unicode, and in just the way I suggested; others are considered (by the
UTC, or just by you?) as "rich text". Like Jill, I see some possible
inconsistency. One point of this discussion is perhaps to determine if
we ought to try to make things more consistent.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
