From: Lokesh Joshi (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:19:47 CDT
Yep, to be specific GSUB and GPOS features in OTF. But the downside is that
apart from the usage of GSUB/GPOS in complex languages as Arabic/Indic, no
SW uses these features "liga" etc for normal text (Latin), some good support
is there from InDesign.
** all Windows text editors etc use usp (uniscribe) which in turn uses
these GSUB/GPOS for understanding and rendering ligature rules.
On 6/2/05, Rajeev J Sebastian <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 5:24 pm, Hans Aberg wrote:
> > At 17:44 +0100 2005/06/01, Jon Hanna wrote:
> > >>If one so wants, one can add all the glyphs one wants, adding a
> > >>property field saying that it is a rendering character.
> > >
> > >No, we cannot. That would completely change the scope and purpose of
> > > Unicode.
> > It would change the scope of the current character set in that respect.
> > So what do you feel is the purpose of Unicode? -- In the context the
> > quote above is taken from, I am speaking about glyphs that are used
> > to give proper rendering to semantic characters.
> I may not fully understand this thread, but what you are saying, has
> been implemented: TrueType Open and OpenType Font handle ligatures (for
> language) by tagging a ligature glyph with the semantic (unicode)
> So the ffi ligature is tagged with "f+f+i". Similiar things are done for
> placement of diacritics, and also optionally using positioning instead of
> precomposing the ligatures into unencoded positions in the font file.
> Rajeev J Sebastian
-- Contact me @ lokeshjoshi AT gmail/yahoo/hotmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:20:45 CDT