On 5 Jul 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> By author: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Why not submit a proposal to include them to Unicode?
> >
> > They are not characters. They are glyphs. The only reason they have
> > encoded the current presentations forms is legacy character sets (I have
> > heard that it was the Egypt government who pushed them). And both Unicode
> > and JTC1/SC2/WG2 have agreed not to encode any more presentation forms
> > (unless they exist in a character set used before 1991).
> >
[...]
>
> There is a legitimate need for encoding of presentation forms, though,
> and there is some benefit to a system which encodes both in the same
> namespace. It would be useful to have a parallel standard, or
> something, which would give code points to presentation forms; perhaps
> this would be a good use for the recently illegalized high planes.
May I ask why we "need" a standard, by any means ?
I thought this is about adding syriac to pango. The only point is, as far
as non-opentype fonts are concerned, the font-encoding; the font has to
contain all the forms.
So the real question is: what font-encoding is used ?
Encoding the presentation-forms in unicode is not neccesary, as _any_
codepoints can be choosen as the _only_ place these codepoints would be
used is inside the shaper.
Karl
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
