From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 18:49:20 EDT
On 23/07/2003 15:07, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>And if the implementers of rendering engines will simply "paint"
>instances of U+034F so that they become available to the font
>side of the rendering equation, then it should be relatively
>simple, as for the Biblical Hebrew point sequence cases, to
>get the <lamed, patah, CGJ, hiriq> sequences to display properly.
Out of interest, it seems that Microsoft's Uniscribe, in several
versions up to and including the latest (not generally released) version
1.468.4015.0, does in fact seem to do this. I have tried rendering
(Yerushala(y)im with CGJ) with different versions of Uniscribe (on
Windows 2000). In each case CGJ is rendered as a square box in each of
several fonts. This behaviour indicates that actually Uniscribe treats
CGJ as a regular paintable character, but it is not implemented in the
specific fonts. So, it seems that if the font designer makes the very
simple changes which John Hudson mentioned, "ligating" CGJ with the
preceding character, the CGJ solution to the Hebrew problem can be
implemented very simply, with no changes to rendering software and
simple changes to fonts.
So where is the serious problem with this solution? I don't see one. Nor
do the President and the Technical Director of the Unicode Consortium.
Perhaps the only problem was a misunderstanding of the properties of
CGJ, which I hope has now been resolved.
And where, for that matter, is the "host of people [who] will fight that
proposal"? I hope they will now realise that the ogre they are fighting
is in fact, if not a handsome prince, at least quite harmless.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:35:02 EDT