On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: > > DS> ... I don't see why > DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061 > DS> is the character. > > This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a > variation sequence on a base character by a higher-level protocol, > which must be overridable in some way.
I don't see why it must be overridable. By not including a variation sequence, you've left it up to the system to pick a glyph. Whatever glyph it picks, you have no right to complain. There is no reason for the system to do anything with the unspecific form variation sequence. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
