- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:23:46 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>, www-style@w3.org
2010/1/7 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, it is a practical issue. Please don't assume a use case is
>> invalid if you haven't run into it yourself.
>
> I didn't. That's why my post was phrased as a question, not a
> statement of fact ("Is this a practical issue?" vs. "This is not a
> practical issue").
>
>> I ran into this problem just a few months ago, after looking up dozens
>> of glyphs in the charts, not finding some glyphs, and then found that
>> I needed to change most of the others to images (with appropriate
>> alternate text, of course) after finding that they are not displayable
>> on most systems.
>
> What language was this, and why did you need it? I'm curious. Even
> if it came up for you, I'm pretty sure it's not common enough to
> outweigh any other concerns raised, especially since it should get
> still less common with time. Although, I don't think anyone is
> talking about banning px for font sizing, we're just talking about
> redefining physical units to be relative to px instead of really
> physical.
The language was Chinese (I should have said characters instead of
scripts, but, alas, sent email can't be edited )=, and the articles
are about calligraphy, so they mention some ancient and variant forms.
(OT comment: That's when I found out that (1) characters in CJK
Extension B, and some in Extension A, normally display as blanks; (2)
there are variant forms used in calligraphy that are not even in CJK
Extension B or compatibility forms; and (3) there are forms that
appear to exist in Unicode but are simply "compatibility" and
apparently I can't rely on their forms being the same as what appears
in the code charts.)
--
cheers,
-ambrose
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 04:24:18 UTC