<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">William, it seems to want to reinvent SVG but limited to text elements and without the XML apparatus. While perhaps interesting as a thought experiment, I don’t think you’ll get much interest unless you can
provide compelling reasons why yet another format is needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(The OpenType COLRv1 table format was designed to supersede the SVG table and had, in my opinion, some pretty compelling reasons. But there were still some who said it wasn’t needed.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In any case, what you’re discussing is a higher-level protocol than Unicode. _<i>Unicode</i>_ will not be delivering this any time soon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Unicode <unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>William_J_G Overington via Unicode<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> unicode@corp.unicode.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Could Unicode deliver the level of paleographic detail needed for encoding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">James Kass wrote as follows:</span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Seriously, but also in the department of “nobody asked”, here’s how to rotate glyphs by any angle:</span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">The virtual machine would do all of that processing behind the scenes for each point in the glyph once it received an angle and a Gr command. I note that the formula quoted rotates the mathematical way, namely counterclockwise
for a positive theta.</span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">> Of course, the glyph has now likely shifted out of its “boundary box” and will need to be repositioned appropriately.</span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">Possibly. Yet this need not necessarily be a problem because the Gs command could have been used to scale the glyph before the rotation and the Gr command might be defined to rotate about the centre of the bounding box of the
glyph, given that the glyph has been validated during fontmaking as having no outlying off-curve points.</span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">William Overington</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wednesday 6 March 2024</span><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>