- From: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:47:48 +1000
- To: Michel SUIGNARD <Michel@suignard.com>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style@w3.org
Hi Michel, > I think that either using hex ranges (as originally designed) or > language script values (such as Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc... > as defined by Unicode UAX#24) is a better approach. And even with that, > it requires some skills to create a font content that adequately cover > writing systems, because of the shared characters (typically classified > as 'Common' or 'Inherited' in term of script values). Using script values sounds like a great idea! That's a lot easier for the user than specifying a dozen Unicode blocks, and it also handles the common and inherited characters, which unicode-range currently can't do. (It's also nice from an efficiency point of view, as we already have perform script processing in order to correctly apply OpenType features, so it is no extra work at all). So, how about allowing unicode-range to accept Unicode script names? And should these be strings or keywords? :) Best regards, Michael -- Print XML with Prince! http://www.princexml.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 00:48:49 UTC