Re: Treatment of Variation Selectors in the Client

On 2024-10-17 15:52, Skef Iterum wrote:
> Beyond that, though, the question is how flexible we can be in 
> satisfying the glyph closure requirement. It seems like the strategy 
> used for static subsets (again, if I'm reading the code right) is to 
> treat the variation selectors as "extra", not considering them as part 
> of the list of unicodes to be preserved (or not). So, for example, 
> even if VS 1 isn't in the list of codepoints to be preserved, you can 
> still get glyphs only accessible using VS 1. It's not clear to me why 
> that's the case.

Perhaps the thinking is that USVs could be applied downstream?

I’m giving a talk at UTW next week that touches on applying formatting 
control characters in buffered states to affect text modes for readers. 
My focus is ZWNJ and ZWJ in Indic scripts, but the same concept can be 
applied to USVs.

J.


-- 

John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks Ltd    www.tiro.com

Tiro Typeworks is physically located on islands
in the Salish Sea, on the traditional territory
of the Snuneymuxw and Penelakut First Nations.

__________

EMAIL HOUR
In the interests of productivity, I am only dealing
with email towards the end of the day, typically
between 4PM and 5PM. If you need to contact me more
urgently, please use other means.

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2024 23:57:31 UTC