Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:12:07 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

    At 03:07 PM 7/23/2003, 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.

    Yes, if the CGJ is painted, I'm home free :)

    Unicode may treat CGJ as a 'mark', but if we don't treat it as a mark in
    the font GDEF table we can ligate it away during glyph composition, e.g.:

             lamed CGJ -> lamed [ignore marks]

    and then never have to worry about it again during mark positioning. I
    would have to add it to my font, but apart from that I don't see any
    problems from the font side. Paul may have concerns from the script engine
    side: I'm not sure how a 'mark' that is ignored in search operations etc.
    fits with the general understanding of mark behaviour.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
    interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
    surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
    journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
    media cannibalism.
                             - Emma Brockes, at the EU summit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:58:56 EDT