Philippe Verdy wrote:

From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


At 17:54 +0100 2003-11-09, Philippe Verdy wrote:


From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


When we encode Tifinagh we will encode Tifinagh. We will not
meta-encode it for ease of transliteration to other scripts.


Yes that was the intent of my suggestion, I don't say that this must
be done. But what would be wrong if a font was created for the
Tifinagh script that would display Latin-based glyphs with
diacritics rather than historic glyphs?


I think you should go back and learn about the characater/glyph model
if you think this is a good idea.



I think we are bothering each other, simply because of mutual misunderstanding. There's nothing in my question above that breaks that model: the abstract character coded in the Tifinagh script is kept unchanged and separated from the actual glyph it uses when rendering.

So my question is, once again: would a font that would display pointed Latin
glyphs from Tifinagh script code points really break the Unicode model?

*shrug* If you want to play with weird fonts that give automatic transliterations, go ahead. I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea (I like doing much the same myself), and in fact can come in quite handy, but it isn't really Unicode's business. Unicode will encode Tifinagh as Tifinagh is (hopefully), not as Tifinagh might be or could be or should be. A font that displays Tifinagh encoded as it is, as Tifinagh as it "should" be, could be a very useful thing (or a useless one, depending on who's looking), but is outside of the purview of Unicode.

If
not, then we have a convenient way to define Tifinagh keyboards / input
methods based on this _apparent_ transliteration. This still requires a
specific mapping to codepoints in the keyboard driver when set to input for
Tifinagh, allows editing with a set of glyphs that a user can read, and then
render it transparently with a real Tifinagh font.

This is one for keyboard designers. If the users of the script have a different input style already in use, they may not feel it's necessary to mess around with another one (which doesn't make it useless: I keep my keyboard set to a Hebrew input method based on the Michigan-Claremont transliteration system, and wholly unlike any normal Israeli keyboard, because it's something I can remember and something that works.) Again, not a Unicode problem, I would think.

~mark




Reply via email to