--- Karl Ove Hufthammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 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 '�'. > > 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
