W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Unicode Normalization

From: Benjamin <benjo316@hotpop.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:44:34 -0600
Message-ID: <421e3c790902051844j1dcfef53g919cb7ffd6e0c546@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Cc: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>wrote:

>
>  This is a similar problem to font/glyph issues outlined earlier by Andrew
>> Cunningham with various African and Eastern languages.
>>
>> I've tried several different fonts, and they all render the glyphs
>> differently, despite canonical equivalence.
>>
>
> This is somewhat tangential to the real issue, but FWIW.... I suspect that
> in most (or perhaps all) cases, what's really happening is that the font
> you're using does not support the characters U+3008 and U+3009, and your
> software is performing a font fallback and rendering these from its default
> CJK font instead. So it's not that font developers are providing different
> glyphs for canonically-equivalent characters, but rather, they are not
> necessarily supporting the equivalent characters at all.
>
> JK
>
>
That is possible; I went into "[Character Map]" (A program on Ubuntu which
lists *all* the characters, whether they exist or not), and in every font,
except for a few, the characters varied only slightly, if at all, between
fonts.

FreeSans and FreeMono show a difference in all the characters in the three
strings(between the two fonts, and between the two characters). The
difference is less noticable in FreeSans, but there is a difference.

Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>One of the reasons its better to use appropriate fonts for the language and
contents of a document.
>
>The shape of each glyph is a design consideration by the font developer
base don the context of its usage.
>

Most of the fonts I checked in my first reply were either Serif, Sans-serif,
or some other non-monospace fonts. Most wouldn't appear to be intended to be
used in something which would require different glyphs to be rendered
differently and handled as such (coding, for example).
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 02:45:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT