- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:50:20 +0200
- To: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>
- Cc: wwwintl <www-international@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au> wrote: > 1) how to handle scripts that are not currently supported in unicode. There > are some. And I am involved in digitisation projects involing such scripts. I recommend talking to the Unicode guys. They seem to be adding new scripts pretty often. > And relying on a PUA implementation would also be hack. Agreed. > 2) there is no requirement on browser developers to support all of Unicode. > So either browser developers must be required to ensure that any unicode > string will display and render correctly, or use of utf-8 must be only one > option among others for web developers. You can use utf-8 and a font that works. We went through this last time. You claimed it wasn't widely supported yet. I claimed that if you don't start using it and writing test cases and submit those to https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests you'll just have to wait longer. > Either tackle the current state of unicode support head on, or improve > support for legacy encodings used by minority languages. > > As far,as I can tell you are inclined to do neither. As far as I can tell, I'm solving a different problem. The solution to your problem is getting Unicode to support more scripts and browsers to get better at supporting features of font formats. That has nothing to do with the Encoding Standard. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 06:50:48 UTC