"William_J_G Overington" <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
wrote:
I cannot understand from that text, or otherwise at the time of
writing this reply, why it would not be possible to have an alternate
ending glyph for a letter e accessible from plain text using an
advanced font technology font (for example, an OpenType font) using
the two character sequence U+0065 U+FE0F.
The specific design of an alternate ending e glyph would vary from
font to font, yet that it is an alternate ending e would be clear: the
encoding U+0065 U+FE0F would allow the intention that an alternate
ending glyph for a letter e is requested to be carried within a plain
text document.
I think the "alternate ending glyph" is supposed to be specified in more
detail than that. The example Asmus gave was U+222A UNION with serifs.
Even though the exact proportions of the serifs may differ from one font
to the next, this is still a relatively precise and constrained
definition, unlike "Latin small letter e with some 'alternate ending'
which is completely up to the discretion of the font designer."
Because of stylistic differences among calligraphers—this is a
calligraphy question, not a poetry question—it is hard to imagine how
this aspect of the proposal would not result in an unbounded number of
glyphic variations. 'e' is not the only letter to which calligraphers
like to attach special endings, and a swash cross-stroke is not the only
special ending that calligraphers like to attach to 'e'.
I'd like to see an FAQ page on "What is Plain Text?" written primarily
by UTC officers. That might go a long way toward resolving the
differences between William's interpretation of what plain text is,
which people like me think is too broad, and mine, which some people
have said is too narrow.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
