- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:55:12 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org, "Peter Sheerin" <pete@petesguide.com>
- CC: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
On Thursday, October 10, 2002, 5:36:51 PM, Peter wrote: >> > Also, the set of characters specified in the current HTML DTDs is >> > not really sufficient to display many important characters, [...] That comment seemed to be a misunderstanding about the range of allowed characters. Its not just ASCII+named character entities - its all of Unicode. >> HTML4 references ISO10646 which means it has every UNICODE character. >> Ditto XML. Do you want HTML to have actual _named entities_ for all >> 16000+ characters? That simply doesn't scale. PS> This is true, but some method is needed for specifying the minimum set of PS> characters that UAs should (must?) be able to render. All of them. However, rendering any of them with the 'missing glyph' (typically an empty rectangle, or a rectangle with a question mark, or some such) is entirely conformant. The exact range of characters that will be rendered with a glyph other than the MCG depends on the fonts available. PS> To leave it to the whim of PS> the UA if characters such as "zero-width no-break space", "non-breaking hyphen", PS> and "LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA", and other special characters are handled They are all *handled*. They might not be *rendered* with their own glyph. Even if they are rendered with MCG, selecting the text and then copy and pasting it into a file and displaying that file on another system that *does* have the right fonts will preserve the character data. PS> are not severly restricts the quality and accuracy of text that PS> authors can use. PS> What do you think the best way of dealing with this would be? A PS> w3c note about which ranges in Unicode should be supported by UAs? How could such a note say anything useful? PS> A similar addition to the XHTML 2.0 spec? Or adding named entities PS> for a limited range of additional characters (math, dingbats, IPA, PS> etc.)? Adding entities would have no effect on rendering whatsoever. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 12:55:09 UTC