IDC's versus Egyptian format controls
Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Fri Feb 16 13:28:13 CST 2018
On 2/16/2018 11:10 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
It's the "may either" which is not the same as "may also".
> 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.
>> 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...
More information about the Unicode