Re: ZWL, ZWNL no difference?

Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 12:22:59 EST

       MD> A. If we have an existing font, with existing ligature
       glyph mappings...

       MD> B. If we have an existing font, without existing ligature
       glyph mappings...

       MD> C. If we have a font with multiple levels of ligature glyph
> support...

       As we consider cost of implementations, I wonder just how many
       fonts there are in existence in each of these categories? I.e.
       what's the cost impact on vendors and users in relation to
       existing fonts of use of ZWL (or ZWNL) versus the cost of any
       other alternative? I suspect the costs in relation to existing
       fonts that Mark refers to is not very high (but feel free to
       correct me if I'm wrong) on the assumption that the
       technologies required to make smart-font ligation work (AAT and
       OT) haven't been around that long and/or have been utilised by
       only a very small number of applications.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT