From: Adam Twardoch (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 07:41:51 CST
Andreas StĂ¶tzner wrote:
> Having a composite character fixed as such in the font is always
> better than generating it via *any* application. Available encoding
> space for more and more composites is one question. But the mere
> generating operation is one another. It may become more easily, more
> safely in the future; in shall happen *within the font* and not
> outside it.
I don't quite follow. Of course I agree that it should be the font that
controls the appearance of an accented character, not an outside
application. But you don't need precomposed glyphs for that, let along
encoded glyphs. A font can use the OpenType "mark" and "mkmk" features
to precisely position diacritical marks with base glyphs using GPOS
(glyph positioning using anchors). Mark positioning is potentially more
powerful because you can have completely arbitrary positioning
combinations of marks. Also, you can use OpenType "ccmp" and "liga"
features to replace a series of encoded glyphs (base character followed
with mark characters) with a precomposed glyph using GSUB (glyph
substitution). There is no need to encode the precomposed forms.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 07:44:44 CST