From: Brian Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2007 - 09:16:07 CDT
I guess I don't understand why these specifications can't be encoded in the
most basic level. If the blank base characters for Thai and Lao are defined
and documented in unicode then font developers will be able to include them
Maybe I am missing something.
From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:45 PM
To: 'John Hudson'; 'Brian Wilson'
Subject: RE: Phetsarat font, Lao unicode
John Hudson wrote:
> What I can do is help ensure that Microsoft and other layout engine folk
> understand your
> request (I'm sure Peter gets it already), and spread the word on some
> OpenType developer
> forums to advise Lao and Thai font makers how to handle this. But in order
> provide such
> advice we first need to determine what character codes should be used to
> encode the
> alternative bases for Lao and Thai marks.
> This reminds me that I also have a request for similar alternative bases
> to be added to
> Hebrew layout engines.
Doesn't it suggest that this defines a new, currently unspecified, property
for scripts, i.e. the preferred visible base character to use as a symbol
for denoting an implied unknown base letter with which a combining character
should be displayed?
So for Latin/Greek/Cyrilic general combining characters we have the dotted
circle in visible editable forms, for Lao vowels some cross-cymbol, for Thai
some dash symbol, ...
For Arabic probably the shaddah. But what for Hebrew, some dash or square?
It's true that it will remain other possibilities, but specifying them
somewhere would help font designers implementing at least those for correct
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 12 2007 - 09:20:01 CDT