I don't know what sort of situation you are describing.
I can only imagine you mean describing something like û as either u +
circumflex, or circumflexed u (ie, on glyph).
If you go here:
https://www.unicode.org/charts/
apart from going blue in the face at the absolutely mind-blowing extent
of the thing, you can isolate almost
every glyph you can imagine as a single glyph (rather than a combination
of several0.
If you are referring to surrogate pairs: forget them quickly, they are
old hat and guaranteed to give you
a permanent cluster headache.
Best, Richmond.
On 15.11.20 12:15, scott--- via use-livecode wrote:
I’m a little over my head in this area so I may not be describing this quite
right…
Some unicode glyphs seem to be describable with different (arrangements of)
codepoints. Is it possible to coerce the glyph to be described in a “standard”
way?
--
Scott Morrow
Elementary Software
(Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
web https://elementarysoftware.com/
email sc...@elementarysoftware.com
booth 1-360-734-4701
------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
