Robert de Bath wrote on 2001-06-11 18:46 UTC:
> I notice you've still included the home built ligatures but isn't this
> functionality already in the unicode standard?
>
> AIUI:
> U+0066 U+FE20 U+0069 U+FE21
> Is the same as:
> U+FB01
I think you really should get a copy of "The Unicode Standard" and read
it carefully. U+FE20 U+FE21 are combining characters to draw an arch
over two characters, included only for backwards compatibility with
dusty bibliographic database systems that had a similar hack.
All I do is to offer exact control over the width of ligatures,
otherwise SCW would be pointless for Indic, Arabic, etc.
> There's also an issue of '0' not being the same as 'default' conflicting
> with VT100 compatibility ... but I need to check some things first.
ECMA-48 implies nowhere that the default of every parameter for every
control function has to be 0, otherwise quote the exact section. The
default is specified for every function. I see no conflict with VT100
compatibility here and it is absolutely trivial to write a parameter
parser properly such that 0 and default are distinguishable.
General request: I you think I violate some standard somewhere, *ALWAYS*
quote the page or section number of that standard that contradicts with
my proposal (just as proof that the standard was actually consulted).
I am slightly concerned though that CSI ... w was apparently already
used by DEC, so I guess it will have to be CSI ... !w then.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/scw-proposal.html
Markus
--
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
