-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Rimas Kudelis uitte de volgende tekst op 10/28/2007 02:18 AM: > Hendrik Maryns rašė: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message >> >> Axel Hecht uitte de volgende tekst op 10/27/2007 04:27 PM: >>> Hi, >>> >>> there is some discussion going on in >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400237 on how to lay out >>> the unichar ellipsis for different scripts, and for different localized >>> versions of OSes. As that bug grows hard to grok, I'm asking some >>> questions here. >>> >>> On a regular XP, the ellipsis is rendered similarily to ... (just more >>> closely spaced). On a Japanese Windows, it's apparently rendered with MS >>> UI Gothic, which places the dots on the middle of the line vertically. >>> Now that obviously looks wrong for English text, but I wonder if it's >>> right in other scripts, in particular, for Japanese. Independent of >>> other apps using '.''.''.' and thus being on the baseline, the font >>> might be right for Japanese script. (The bug has a testcase for the >>> ellipsis in both fonts.) >>> >>> Are there similar problems for other scripts? >>> >>> Could this happen to other glyphs? >> There is something in the Unicode standard for this. If I remember and >> understand correctly, it is the same character, but the glyph can differ >> per language. That is, you use \U2026, and each locale will make sure >> it has the right glyph. That is, if you have Japanese from top to >> bottom, it will (and should) be three dots below each other. For Latin >> script, it will always be three dots next to each other, etc. So >> basically, as long \U2026 is used, everything should be fine. >> >> But please correct me if I’m wrong. > > I don't think you're right. > > First, I can't see anything like that mentioned in the latest version of > unicode chart table: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2000.pdf > > Second, I believe that this would defeat the purpose of Unicode (which > is to be consistent, no matter what the context or language is). > > I'd rather think it's stated somewhere else (perhaps even in Unicode > standard) that the ellipsis itself can be expressed by using different > characters, depending on the language used. But those different > characters have their own codepoints, I guess. Ah, that sounds reasonable, I think I remembered it incorrectly. Then it has to do with fonts, probably. H. -- Hendrik Maryns http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/ ================== www.lieverleven.be http://aouw.org http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHJJJpe+7xMGD3itQRApEoAJ9NFOo/xHAIPKa7dKRqHTNDuxZ31ACeNIvh Int2a8Zy6iphBB42NE+fKOw= =u4NO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
