Date: Sat Nov 24 2007 - 18:04:10 CST
Quoting Peter Constable <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
>> Behalf Of "André Szabolcs Szelp"
>> I personally believe, that every script's glyph should be designed in
>> their original orientation.
> What does it matter? The vast majority of users have no idea
> whatsoever what all is involved in getting their letterforms to
> display on the screen, let alone what orientation is used at glyph
> design time. This is just purism for the sake of purism, expending
> resources on implementation that provide no benefit whatsoever to
> end users.
From experience I would say that the best thing to do is ask end
users what they wish to see on the screen, not how they wish it to be
implemented. But the implementation should address those needs.
> And if people are really concerned about Mongolian type designers,
> then the most cost effective solution is to make glyph design tools
> in which the design surface can be rotated in the UI. That makes far
> more sense than expecting changes at every level in existing text
> stack implementations.
Mongolians font designers of course need to understand the
>> Mongolian -- as opposed to Chinese -- is
>> always written top-to-bottom natively. Turning the glyphs in embedding
>> should be part of the standard, and not as someone claimed the duty of
>> a higher protocol. You don't use a higher protocol for embedding, say,
>> Armenian into, say, Hebrew.
I have to agree here. Even though this makes implementation more
difficult, that does not mean it should not be done. At the end of the
day those involved in implementaion are a relatively small group of
people compared to the end users.
Is is worth remembering many features today considered standard where
20 years ago considered hopelessly difficult.
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 24 2007 - 18:06:46 CST