- From: Behnam Esfahbod via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 00:21:21 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
But, @r12a, besides what you mentioned already, I should say I'm surprised by some other i18n decisions in that document. Under Section 9.5 Paint Text: > NOTE > While one-to-one mapping between characters and typographical glyphs is generally the rule in some scripts, e.g. latin script, it is the exception in others. For instance, in arabic script, a character can yield multiple glyphs depending on its position in a word. The Hypothetical Render Model always assumes a one-to-one mapping, but reduces the performance of the glyph buffer for scripts where one-to-one mapping is not the general rule (see GCpy below). IMHO, that's a 20th century approach and the non-one-to-one mapping case is true for many other writing systems, besides Arabic, like Indic writing systems. (Also, editorial note about names of languages/writing-systems not being capitalized.) Later, under Section B. Recommended Character Sets, a few languages are hand-picked without providing rational for it. Also: 1. How can we add more languages (and their character set) to the this list? 2. What are the criteria in creating the character set for a languages. -- GitHub Notification of comment by behnam Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/117#issuecomment-302575740 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 19 May 2017 00:21:28 UTC