From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 18:56:46 CDT
>>> Take MS Word for example. You can make selections at the character
>>> level and apply colour
>> to the glyphs that represent the selected characters.
>> Which version? It doesn't work for Thai vowels in Word 2002.
> Thai and Indic scripts are different, because selection takes place at the
Interesting thought. One doesn't need to select the characters and change
the colours. There are devious means of specifying the colouring. One is
to convert to hex (alt-x) and change the colour - the colouring is preserved
when the hex is converted back to a character. The other is to select the
colour, and then type the character. I have confirmed that the colours of
the marks are different by examining the text of the RTF file.
> This works fine for me in both Word 2002 and 2003. Not all the current
> versions of the fonts you mention have mark attachment positioning data
> for Arabic, though. You want to test with something like the MS Arabic
> Typesetting font, or another advanced OT font.
That's beyond my font repertoire, but interesting. The combining hamza that
wouldn't combine properly displayed its own colour. While I can select the
damma even when it doesn't disrupt shaping (it did for some fonts) and
formally change the colour, the colour only reveals itself when I insert
other characters, such as an 'h' before - reveals the damma colour - or
afterwards - the inserted letter receives the assigned colour. When the
damma didn't combine properly and disrupted shaping, it did have its own
All this makes it look as though PDF is the way to go. I can't say I much
like the idea of hacking the intermediate PostScript to apply the specified
colour. I wonder why colour selection works for you and not for me.
Perhaps you have a more advanced Uniscribe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 18:58:37 CDT