- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:42:54 -0400
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad.esfahbod@gmail.com>, Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>, style <www-style@w3.org>, wwwintl <www-international@w3.org>, intlcore <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, indic <public-i18n-indic@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > I agree that they shouldn't need to, but I'm interested in having a standard > way to do so if automated grapheme identification fails e.g. because the > software has insufficient or inaccurate information about the language in > question. Also, I expect there to be variation in typographic preference > among language user who, for instance, include digraphs (trigraphs, etc.) as > letters in their alphabets. I agree on the importance of manual fallback in this case.
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 16:43:54 UTC