From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 09 2007 - 22:16:18 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> One problem is that fonts (at least with TrueType/OpenType) are not designed
> to support reordering and positioning with an unbound number of base
Font engines handle reordering.
> For example the GSUB/GPOS tables in TrueType require listing
> somewhere the complete list of codepoints where such reordering and
> positioning may be applied, ...
A listing of glyph IDs is stored in the font. Fonts only store
codepoints in the "cmap" table. The listing of glyph IDs may
be a complete list of every glyph ID involved, or it may be
done using ranges in order to minimize table size.
> ... something that can't be performed in fonts with
> the current format, because they don't allow defining character classes in
The OpenType GDEF table format requires assignment of
glyphs to various character classes. These classes are neither
user- nor developer-definable, though. Unicode also assigns
character classes, but only to characters. Complex script
fonts generally have scads of "presentation form" glyphs
which aren't characters in the Unicode sense.
> ... and assigning them pseudo-glyph IDs that can be used in GSUB tables.
Pseudo-glyph ID might be a misleading phrase. A Glyph ID is
simply the number of the position of a glyph's data in a font.
The first glyph, contrary to conventional counting methods,
is given the glyph ID of zero. And so forth.
> It seems then more reasonable that renderers implement these character
> classes, and recognize which fonts support such reordering : ...
And that's exactly what font engines are supposed to do.
> ... the renderer
> for example could be looking for rules based on the dotted circle symbol,
> and automatically infer the other applicable rules for other Common symbols,
Does this assume that the dotted circle is part of the encoded text?
It normally isn't, it's inserted (to the display only) by (at least) one
popular font engine. Regardless, other symbols will most always
have completely different metrics. It's unlikely that a font engine
will calculate the different heights, advance widths, and so forth,
in order to approximate a correct placement of the combining
character glyph. It's probably equally unlikely that a font developer
will add a potentially infinite number of GPOS rules to a font's tables
in order to accomplish this with every conceivable arbitrary base
Then there's that performance hit...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 09 2007 - 22:20:29 CDT