From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:12:07 EDT
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.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
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
- Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:58:56 EDT