Re: Unicode 2.0

[Paul Pichaureau <ppichaur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christian Wagner wrote:

> In practice, the distinction between these two concepts is often
> difficult to maintain, if, for no other reason, because such a
> distinction has rarely been made in the past. The result of this
> historical confusion between the two concepts is that many existing
> character sets encode "glyphs," and, for reasons of backward
> compatibility, these "glyphs" now appear in Unicode as "characters."
> An example of such a glyph is the roman ligature glyphs 'ff' and 'fi'.
> 
> The conceptual problems raised by this distinction were recognized
> both by the designers of Unicode and by ISO in its development of
> ISO/IEC 10646 and other standards. In order to help clarify this area,
> ISO asked the US National Body to develop a draft Character/Glyph
> Operational Model[" draft Character/Glyph Operational Mode" est une
> référence croisée].
> 
> -------------------- Fin de l'extrait ---------------------------------
> 
> Cela a, au moins, le mérite d'expliquer (je ne dis pas justifier)
> certaines incohérences. Cela a surtout le mérite que l'objet premier
> de Unicode est le codage de caractères (d'un point de vue abstrait,
> j'imagine), et non les dessins de caractères.

  C'est encore la belle typographie qui va payer les pots cassés ! Du
coup, les ligatures n'ont qu'un statut bâtard, puisque, si j'ai bien
saisi, elles ne sont pas des caractères, juste des glyphes...



> --
> | Christian WAGNER


-- 
 Paul  Pichaureau                e-mail: ppichaur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Et il arriva que                Strasbourg, France  -  03 88 10 70 84 
 le Jeune Paul...                IPCMS (http://www-ipcms.u-strasbg.fr)