On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:21:30AM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote: > No, the claim was that diaresis and overscript e are the same, > so the reversed case Marc is talking about is not different at all.
The claim is, that for certain fonts, it is appropriate to image the a-umlaut character as an a^e. That doesn't imply anything about the other way around, or else t' could legally be displayed as a t with caron above. > > A U+0308 (COMBINING DIAERESIS) should remain a U+0308, > > regardless that the corresponding glyph *looks* like U+0364 > > (COMBINING LATIN > > SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304 > > (COMBINING MACRON) in > > another font, and it looks like two five-pointed start > > side-by-side in a > > third font, and it looks like Mickey Mouse's ears in <Disney.ttf>... > > These are all unacceptable variations in a *Unicode font (in > default mode)*. But you can have all kinds of silly variations > in *non*-Unicode fonts applied to Unicode text, including ciphers > or rebuses... (ok, there are degrees...) Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font. (The glyph for my German teachers umlaut was definitely a macron.) Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they shouldn't worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard book fonts, but that's the only way I can read your last statement. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"
