At 10:58 PM 1/24/02 +0000, David Hopwood wrote: >One possibility is to make VS1 specify what is now the reference glyph, >and VS2 specify the alternate glyph. Unmarked would mean either.
Boy, great minds do think alike. I proposed that in a paper to the UTC last year. ;-) You realize that this issue is not limited to variation selectors? Read the section on greek phi in http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28 >The other possibility is to say that to be strictly Unicode-conformant, >fonts should always use the reference glyph for unmarked characters >(ignoring differences only of style). I think this is actually a better >solution in practice; it avoids having to add selectors that would >usually be redundant, and that would interfere with normalisation. >It's also consistent with the Mongolian variant selectors, where >unmarked should mean the "first form". Boy, great minds to think alike. Mark Davis just proposed that in a paper to the UTC this week. Unfortunately. this is not a model that's always usable. Please read the section on phi for background. By adding a variation, we cannot restrict the glyph range for the unmarked character - Mongolian being an exception since the unmarked character's glyph range has been *explicitly* restricted from the outset to the standard positional forms. For VS1, the situation is different in that the glyph range of the *unmarked* character *also* includes the glyph identified by VS1. A./
