WO> U+F3A2 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT TWO CHARACTERS WO> U+F3A3 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT THREE CHARACTERS WO> U+F3A4 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT FOUR CHARACTERS
While I don't think this discussion of various PUA allocations should continue very further, it's probably a lot better to introduce the already-discussed ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR in such a form that X ZWL Y produces the XY ligature, X ZWL Y ZWL Z the XYZ ligature and so on. It saves you a lot of hassle with longer ligatures. WO> U+F3A8 PLEASE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM WO> U+F3A9 PLEASE ALTERNATIVE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM Does this belong in a character-based encoding system at all? This is better solved by markup. If you go on defining your own file formats already, do include some sensible markup system there, and you don't have to clutter the PUA and restrict their use. What if you've got more than 2 swash forms, BTW? WO> U+F3C0 PLAIN - ITALIC:=false; BOLD:=false; WO> ... WO> U+F3FF 192 POINT Again, markup is the better solution. And, to be honest, it's a bit of a waste of space on the mailing list, don't you think? WO> I hope that these Courtyard Codes will be of interest to end users. I don't really think so. They don't offer very much that well-known typesetting systems don't implement already in their own fashion. Philipp Philipp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________ Stay the patient course / Of little worth is your ire / The network is down
