IDC's versus Egyptian format controls

[Ken Whistler via Unicode]

On 2/16/2018 11:00 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:

On 2/16/2018 8:00 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>> That doesn't square well with, "An implementation *may* render a valid
>> Ideographic Description Sequence either by rendering the individual
>> characters separately or by parsing the Ideographic Description
>> Sequence and drawing the ideograph so described." (TUS 10.0 p704, in
>> Section 18.2)

Emphasis on the "may". In point of fact, no widespread layout engine or 
set of fonts does parse IDS'es to turn them into single ideographs for 
display. That would be a highly specialized display.

>
> Should we ask t make the default behavior (visible IDS characters) 
> more explicit?

Ask away.

--Ken

>
> I don't mind allowing the other as an option (it's kind of the reverse 
> of the "show invisible"
> mode, which we also allow, but for which we do have a clear default).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180216/42c62fd4/attachment.html>