From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 13:00:53 CDT
I suppose that many fonts are not designed to support scripts that have or
may need variation selectors, and their authors have better to do.
My opinion is that it’s up to renderers, not to fonts, to recognize the
variation selectors in the encoded text, and then to see if the font has a
special mapping for the combination:
* If the font has this mapping (for example a substitution rule for the
combination), or a mapping for the variation selector itself, then the
renderer will use that font.
* If not, the renderer will discard the variation selector but will still
use that font for the base character.
De : email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] De la
part de Mark Davis
Envoyé : vendredi 24 août 2007 17:29
À : Doug Ewell
Cc : Unicode Mailing List; UTC
Objet : Re: Apostrophes at www.unicode.org
A similar annoyance is the fact that so many fonts don't map the
default-ignorable code points (like variation selectors) to a zero-width
invisible glyph by default. Expecially since with True/OpenType, it is
essentially free to add support for a character that has the same glyph as
one you already have in the font.
Maybe what would help would be a document aimed at font developers, which
contained a list of the default mappings that they should supply
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 13:02:56 CDT