From: Christopher Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 23:56:13 CST
Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> Don't we all have to convince font designers to include our glyphs?
> "Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs."
Again not exactly - in a "smart" font you can include a mark attachment
point on all base glyphs and a mark to mark attachment point on
diacritic marks - then a lookup which will attach any of these diacritic
mark glyphs to the glyph for any base character (or to a preceding mark
glyph where there are multiple diacritics) at this point.
The interrobang glyph looks like a question mark and exclamation mark
printed over each other (overlapping) - which is quite different than a
combining mark which sits above or below a base character glyph. (For a
start there can be rendering problems when you overlap two outlines.)
While there are fonts which have lookups allowing you to combine the
glyph for _any_ diacritic in the font with the glyph for _any_ base
letter in the font, I've never seen a font which lets one arbitrarily
print the glyph for any character *on top of* one for any other just by
inserting a ZWJ between two characters. So I think you'd more or less
have to have a specific lookup for this particular combination. A lookup
which displayed this combination of characters using a specific
"inverted interrobang" glyph in the font.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 01:08:44 CST