Am Freitag, den 27.04.2012, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > > I think this is a question of font design, not of character encoding. > > Yes. If necessary, an OpenType font could provide different glyphs > for different languages to provide optimally looking shapes.
a) So code point-to-glyph mapping in a font is not one-to-one? b) Then the, say, "German glyph" for U+201C (“) will look like U+201E („) (and thus be LEFT and "opening") and the one for U+201D (”) will look like U+201C (“)? and like U+00AB («) and U+00BB (») for French? c) Why have U+201E, U+00AB and U+00BB been encoded then? d) Is U+201F (‟) considered a mistake then? It is only about looks, not about meaning like a RIGHT HIGH 6 Q... would be. e) How does the font know which glyph to choose for a given, say, UTF-8 byte sequence? Do we get back to "charset" selection then? f) Should a code point not encode meaning and thus a "left opening" mark never be required to be abused as a "right closing" one? Michael
