🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <665@manutius.UUCP> nickn@manutius (Nick Nussbaum) writes:
>
>The standard is a political compromise between the minimal encoding for
>linguistic purposes and the practical desire to subsume most computer
>character sets. Note that the unicode spec already includes zapf dingbats,
>p.c vector characters and 2 dot leaders. Unfortunately it doesn't include
>the rest of the common ligatures such as those in the Adobe Expert Set.

What are people assuming Unicode is trying to achieve?

I always thought it was for information exchange.

I seem to remember that the draft said that Unicode didn't try to
encode glyphs -- although in many cases it ended up doing so for one
reason or another. But: no glyph encoding. Did the final Unicode
document alter this in any way?

The discussion here seems to assume that Unicode should encode the
glyphs: that is, encode the form of the document, rather than it's
contents.

Thus, ligature ffi would be different from f+f+i, ranging 2 different
from non-ranging 2, handwritten R different from Times Roman R
different from that quaint R used by that German printer (Rausch?)

We seem to be getting into some kind of Unicode morass here, trying to
encode all levels (form & contents) of a document with the same code.

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden