- From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:24:05 -0700
- To: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>, Matitiahu Allouche <matitiahu.allouche@gmail.com>, www-international@w3.org
On 6/19/2014 11:27 AM, Najib Tounsi wrote: > On 6/19/14 2:51 PM, Matitiahu Allouche wrote: >> >> 11) In 2.2 table of Compatibility Equivalence, the third example is >> labelled "Cursive forms". I think that this would be better labelled >> "character shapes". Rationale: the example shows various shapes of an >> Arabic letter. But similar examples could be taken from final versus >> non-final shapes of some Hebrew letters, or from the final versus >> non-final shapes of the Greek sigma letter. Hebrew and Greek are not >> cursive scripts, so the issue here is having position-dependent >> shapes, not cursiveness. The Greek final sigma uses a different character code which is not a compatibility equivalent. The reason is that, unlike Arabic positional shaping, the selection of the final form cannot be determined algorithmically at rendering time and would otherwise introduce the need to use ZWNJ with Greek; not a good tradeoff. Whatever example is used needs to be limited to cases of automatic shape selection at rendering. A./ > Cursiveness may illustrate well the change in the shape according to > the position. > > Regards, Najib > >> To avoid mixing the 2 issues, I suggest to label this line "Character >> shapes" (or something equivalent) and to take as examples letters >> from Hebrew or from Greek. >> >> *--* >> >> *Shalom (Regards), Mati* >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 19:24:11 UTC