Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs

From: Antoine Leca (
Date: Thu Mar 16 2006 - 12:56:47 CST

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs"

    Philippe Verdy wrote:
    > I fully agree there. The missing conjuncts and subscripts forms, as
    > well as the list of forms with special treatment like RA or
    > RA+HALLANT logically coded before the consonnant cluster on which
    > such sequences are treated like graphical diacritics is missing.

    I never considered TUS as the ultimate truth in the matter of Indic scripts,
    but accepting this...

    > This causes lots of confusion and errors in many fonts

    Of course, if font designers ONLY base thir work on TUS, the result is
    unlikely to be of ultimate quality.
    However, I do no believe this is common behaviour.

    > (as well as interoperability problems, when documents are created
    > with these fonts, notably for the web).

    Please elaborate, I do not see the point here.

    > The problem is notable even with core fonts provided with Windows, or
    > rendered with Uniscribe or in Internet Explorer, even when the fonts
    > are correct (the most significant error is the case of the vowel sign
    > I which is not displayed before the base letter in Bengali or Oriya
    > or Gurmukhi).

    Either the font is correct, and the problem does not show up, which is BTW
    my relation of the case you mentionned; in fact, for Gurmukhi I know quite
    well, every version of Uniscribe I know of, starting with the first beta I
    saw in 1998, deals correctly with Gurmukhi sihari, provided you use it with
    a properly encoded font (and early betas did have a different scheme for the
    features, also available with plain IE5).

    Or the fonts is plain incorrect. Correct placement of the I matra is a very
    basic mandatory feature.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 16 2006 - 13:11:37 CST