From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 15:44:33 CDT
From: "Antoine Leca" <Antoine10646@leca-marti.org>
> On Friday, August 26th, 2005 02:43Z Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>> Christopher Fynn wrote:
>>>> Will the specs for shaping each complex script (now kind of a
>>>> separate appendix to the OpenType specification and currently
>>>> determined by Microsoft) be part of this standard?
>> I think that these appendixes should be part of the standard, because
>> the fonts for complex scripts can't be used reliably without the
>> definition of those features,
> Then you will not see such a standard stabilize in this decade.
> Even with a restricted set of scripts, say 5 of them (the "complex" ones.)
Well I can admit that for the first run, MPEG will only behave correctly
with simple scripts, but will lack the support for fine typography, which is
enabled only by non-standard features.
The only supported things will be the default GSUB/GPOS table... and MPEG
files will have to be prepared specially with pre-reordered strings for
other scripts (this may require bundling TrueType fonts containing PUAs to
allow accessing to the supplementary glyphs). So MPEG will not be conforming
to the Unicode logical encoding order for strings using non-simple
This additional support will still be needed sometime, and MPEG will have to
be modified later to include the support of complex scripts, with newly
standardized OpenType features, or using licenced proprietary extensions. I
am not sure that this will help stability and interoperability of the MPEG
standard during the next decade...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 15:47:36 CDT