Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs

From: Richard Wordingham (
Date: Mon Mar 20 2006 - 15:31:33 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Representative glyphs for combining kannada signs"

    Peter Constable wrote:

    > Here's what's happening: Charmap is reading the cmap table for AUMS to
    > determine what characters to display in its palette. But then it proceeds
    > to call a text-drawing API in a standard way that would be needed to draw
    > running text in each script rather than an alternate way that avoids font
    > fallback and ensures that each character from the font is displayed. The
    > standard call passes through Uniscribe which then determines for each
    > script whether OpenType Layout support is required. Of course, for all of
    > the Indic scripts, this is required. Uniscribe then checks which scripts
    > the font has OpenType Layout tables for: AUMS has OpenType Layout tables
    > for Devanagari, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Tamil and Kannada, but not for
    > Bengali, Oriya, Telugu or Malayalam. Since running text will not display
    > correctly for the latter four scripts without OpenType layout tables,
    > Uniscribe selects fallback fonts for these. For Bengali, Telugu and
    > Malayalam, which are supported in XP SP2, it falls back!

    Does this mean that unsupported scripts that might benefit from OpenType
    Layout should have (unusable - untestable?) OTL tables in a font if the font
    is to be usable? Might this explain why all the Lao-centred fonts I have
    are reluctant to render Lao? Code2000 is one of the very few fonts to
    render Lao in Notepad. Does Lao genuinely need OTL? I can see how it can
    benefit from it, but that is not the same statement.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 20 2006 - 16:19:46 CST