Standardizing codepoints

[Richmond]

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     scott at elementarysoftware.com
> booth    1-360-734-4701
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode