On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>wrote: > > Referring to UAX#29 here is a good idea, but could you confirm your > intention > > of the suggested change? > > The concern here was that the statement as written is exceedingly vague. > There are many "typographic traditions" as there are many languages and > scripts. Some guidance on what to do seemed warranted. > > > * “further tailor” to “extend grapheme cluster boundaries” looks like > you’re > > suggesting to prohibit shrinking grapheme cluster boundaries, but I > suppose it’s > > not your intention, is it? Isn’t “tailor” more appropriate word to use > here, in > > terms of giving more flexibilities to implementers, and it’s the word > widely > > used in UAX#29? > > In the main, we do mean "extend", since that what usually needs to happen. > I can't, off hand, think of a case where the cluster is reduced in size, > but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Tailor, as a result, is probably the > better word choice. I believe this wording came about because of an issue I raised for Thai. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0542.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0632.html Fundamentally, the issue is that for Thai (and almost certainly Lao) there are two distinct concepts which do not always coincide (though they often do): a) positions between *characters* that are possible caret positions b) positions between *glyphs* where it is typographically conventional to insert letter-spacing The Unicode grapheme cluster concept is closest to (a). (a) is a good starting point for (b), but in my view it is rather confusing to treat (b) as a 'tailoring' of (a): they are different concepts operating in different realms (characters vs glyphs). James
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 05:56:48 UTC