-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
usage of terminology 'codepoints' in patch subset spec. #73
Comments
Perhaps Codepoint reordering should be named something more precise, like Index Generation. Because it takes codepoints as input, but does not generate new codepoints; instead it generates index values. |
I would agree to the analysis, although some sections other than the section on |
@garretrieger @litherum this one is not moving forward, let's discuss on the call today? |
@himorin does the revised wording at 4.1. Font Subset and 4.7. Codepoint Reordering resolve your comment? As you will see at 4.3.3. PatchRequest |
@svgeesus Thank you for updates. I believe current terminologies resolve my confused points, and I am happy to close this. |
micronit: Although i'm always tempted to write codepoint (one word), i think the more usual way (per Unicode Standard) is code points (two words). I'm sure it's perfectly understandable as is, though, so just mentioning this to be pedantic. |
(during i18n discussion,) I personally felt that a word 'codepoints' are used as identifier of both "set of codepoints" (target codepoints which client requests and are transferred from server) and "set of glyph substitutions of font" (handled as subset of font), and I wonder this might be confusing for some readers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: