Am 16.04.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Daniel Spreadbury:
> I think your proposal is good, but I would propose that we make a few
> changes: rather than keying each range off a description of the code
> points included in the range, we will add a camel case name for each range
> and use that as the main key for each range.
Yes, I was thinking about that as well but refrained from it since there are some descriptions with bracketed stuff …
Still, it’s just some sort of identifier so I don’t care about the name.
> I propose that we also
> include the canonical names of each glyph included in each range.
That’s nice. I wonder if we could even go one step further then and merge ranges.json with glyphnames.json?
Otherwise the information would somehow be redundant. I mean, I can easily look up all glyphs from a given range in glyphnames.json just by the codepoints (ok, it’s a bit messy when the programming language of your choice does not support hex numbers natively).
Maybe even classnames.json does not need to be a separate file? The classes could also be added (as an array) to the appropriate glyphnames?
> We'll take a look at putting this together in the next little while. I
> don't anticipate a problem accommodating it before 1.0.
Many thanks for all your efforts!
Best
Peter
--
Peter Stadler
Carl-Maria-von-Weber-Gesamtausgabe
Arbeitsstelle Detmold
Gartenstr. 20
D-32756 Detmold
Tel. +49 5231 975-665
Fax: +49 5231 975-668
stadler at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
www.weber-gesamtausgabe.de
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
