Re: A new word for the English language

Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 12:12:59 EDT

On 08/05/2002 10:04:14 AM "James Kass" wrote:

>Seriously, if there's one thing I've learned from this list, it is
>that one should think twice before arguing with Mr. Constable.

Oh, I hope not!

>> That's about as good for me. In practice, I'd probably say "it is almost
>> never necessary to encode a ligature glyph."
>Come now, we don't encode glyphs, we encode characters.

Case in point. My comment certainly is not beyond debate.

I have often heard people refer to encoding of glyphs, even in the context
of documents rather than fonts. For instance, when someone maps contextual
forms, ligatures or positional variants of diacritics from the cmap and
then uses that to encode these directly in a document, that is often
referred to as a glyph encoding or a presentation-form encoding. (I prefer
the latter, myself. Of course, some also refer to it as "a hack"... ) Now,
arguably we are encoding *characters* and just treating the presentation
forms as though they were distinct characters. On the other hand, there is
no question that something like a PDF docuement is encoding specifically
glyphs, so at least in some contexts it's valid to talk that way.

I may be wrong, but it's my impression that others involved in font
technologies would talk about "encoding glyphs" in the sense I used.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:19:44 EDT