srintuar wrote:
> FWIW, I'd assert that "j" in Spanish is not the same thing as
> "j" in English (and that one is easily proved), apart from them being
> represented with the same *glyph*.
You picked (certainly involuntarily) a very instructive example.
I am living in Spain, so I feel qualified to
srintuar wrote:
This may be more of a practical issue: for some scripts such as Korean,
representing every possible character and partial character could
require a very large amount of codespace. We only have the precomposed
characters now for compatibility with platforms that simply dont support
c
Danilo Segan wrote:
New policies such as "no more precomposed glyphs" also indicate that
we're talking about glyph repository, not about character repository
(i.e. "no more precomposed glyphs, since you can get those glyphs by
combining existing glyphs", even though they may have entirely
d
Hi,
Today at 13:44, srintuar wrote:
> As for serbian, I dont think that really has much to do with unicode
> itself. You could apply a special folding algorithm when doing
> searches in a serbian context, but I dont think you would want to make
> the script ambiguous.
I'd rather make script amb
