- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:05:39 -0400
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
Richard Ishida scripsit: > >Is this implying (though not stating, note), that the text should be > >normalized so that the glyph for the canonically equivalent character > >can be used? (I'm not sure that's a good idea.) > > > >Or is the meaning that if the font has a glyph for the precomposed > >character that is canonically equivalent to the sequence of characters, > >then that glyph should be used (without changing the sequence of > >characters itself). That would seem to make more sense. You are over-interpreting step 1. Its sole purpose is to pick candidate fonts, not to make decisions about rendering individual characters. If a font either has the desired characters, or has a single character that is canonically equivalent to the desired characters -- then it is a candidate font, otherwise not. -- Dream projects long deferred John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --James Lileks
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 20:06:01 UTC