W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2007

RE: [CSS3 Text] Tibetan Emphasis marks

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:50:55 -0700
Message-ID: <49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F913B7E926@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>, <www-international@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Andres Montano <amontano7@gmail.com>, Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>, "Robert R. Chilton" <acip@well.com>

Can you send me use cases and explanations on how the mark is used? A use case would make this fairly simple to add/adapt in the text-emphasis area.

The problem, as you know with Unicode, is that there are not always clear explanations documented on how characters are used or marked up.


Paul Nelson

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:08 AM
To: www-international@w3.org; www-style@w3.org
Cc: Andres Montano; Andrew West; Robert R. Chilton
Subject: [CSS3 Text] Tibetan Emphasis marks

The Tibetan script emphasis characters in the Unicode Standard (U+0F35 and
U+0F37) are somewhat problematic as they are defined as combining marks and so
get applied to a single base glyph whereas they  actually  apply to
whole words (Tibetan: ming) - and should be more or less be centered under that
word rather than under a single Tibetan "stack" within that word. These
characters may also cause problems in searching etc. if they are not ignored.

Since these are emphasis marks (like the CJK "sesame" dots) it seems to me that
in most cases a better solution would be to use higher level markup - so perhaps
these forms should be included as values for the 'text-emphasis' property in
CSS-3. The existing "circle" would probably do for the glyph shape of character
U+0F37 but the one for U+0F35 may need an additional value.

- Chris Fynn

National Library of Bhutan

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 20:50:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:29 UTC