Hello Hooman That invalidates my assumptions, thanks for evaluating it's more complex than I thought. Kind Regards Ted
> On 8 Feb 2017, at 00:07, Hooman Mehr <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I now assume that: >> 1. -= a “plain” Unicode character (codepoint?) can result in one >> glyph.=- > > What do you mean by “plain”? Characters in some Unicode scripts are by no > means “plain”. They can affect (and be affected by) the characters around > them, they can cause glyphs around them to rearrange or combine (like > ligatures) or their visual representation (glyph) may float in the same space > as an adjacent glyph (and seem to be part of the “host” glyph), etc. So, the > general relationship of a character and its corresponding glyph (if there is > one) is complex and depends on context and surroundings characters. > >> 2. -= a grapheme cluster always results in just a single glyph, true? >> =- > > False > >> 3. The only thing that I can see on screen or print are glyphs >> (“carvings”,visual elements that stand on their own ) > > The visible effect might not be a visual shape. It may be for example, the > way the surrounding shapes change or re-arrange. > >> 4. In this context, a glyph is a humanly recognisable visual form of a >> character, > > Not in a straightforward one to one fashion, not even in Latin / Roman script. > >> 5. On this level (the glyph, what I can see as a user) it is not >> relevant and also not detectable >> with how many Unicode scalars (codepoints ?), grapheme, or even on >> what kind >> of encoding the glyph was based upon. > > False >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
