🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug23.081157.28899@linkoping.trab.se> ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin) writes:

>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


Since it has "Uni" in its name, it seems to be trying to be all things
to all people. I certainly can't be that if it does not include ligatures.
It can't be used for encoding fonts, for instance. This there still is
no generally useful way of encoding fonts, resulting in a terrible kludge.

It has everything **including the kitchen sink** (there is a kitchen sink
in Dingbats, isn't there :-) ) and totally useless to me Chinese
characters ... why not the **important** things like ligatures??

Doug McDonald