Andrew Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 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 '�' glyph, but an 'a' and a '�' glyph, the '�' 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
