On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:03:41 -0700 Ken Whistler via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/21/2018 7:56 AM, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote: > Really? Suppose someone wants to implement a bicameral script in PUA. > They would need case mappings for that, and how would those be > "better represented in the font itself"? Or how about digits? Would > numeric values for digits be "better represented in the font itself"? > How about implementation of punctuation? Would segmentation > properties and behavior be "better represented in the font itself"? The least intrusive way of defining the meaning of a graphic (sensu lato) character is by a font, in a very wide sense that would interpret a Unicode code chart as a font. Without a font in this sense, normal characters in the PUA have no meaning. If one insists on a font to have an interpretation, then: (1) PUA characters in plain text are meaningless - I believe that's pretty much the position now. (2) Different schemes can co-exist, even within the same formatted document, by having different formats. This is the case now. It then makes sense to store the properties in the font, which needs to be saved with or in the document for the document to continue to make sense. Casing and digits are luxuries. Are we not told that searching should be done by collation? We then do not need case-folding! Interpreting the preferred representation of Roman numerals does not use Unicode properties beyond the approximate principle of one character, one codepoint. As to segmentation, my understanding was that there were no characters available to indicate word boundaries in scriptio continua; the closest one has is line-breaking suggestions. If my memory serves me right, SIL Graphite fonts can hold line-breaking information. Richard.
