From: Mahesh T. Pai (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 30 2008 - 03:20:10 CDT
firstname.lastname@example.org said on Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:02:53PM +0900,:
> I guess you're looking for some standard ligature collections
> for Indic scripts, and you want to assign PUA codepoints to
> them. I think PRC's precomposed Tibetan glyph collection
> (GB/T 20542:2006) is similar approarch. However, such effort
> is out of scope of ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode, and the explicit
> utilization of PUA codepoint (to point an Indic ligature) may
> not be welcomed in Unicode oriented softwares.
This brings me to a question I asked quite a few people some years
ago, and did not receive an answer.
How can one ensure that text created on one rendering system
(rendering/layout engine + font) which uses one method of using glyphs
from the PUA renders same on another system which may or may not use a
different method of using the PUA.
Somebody told me something on IRC, and I have extrapolated that
information to understand that (1) the truetype fonts have a method of
naming glyphs, which can be used uniformly, irrespective of the
position of the glyph in the PUA (2) the layout engine has to have a
mapping from a sequence to a named glyph (3) once the layout engine
encounters a code sequence which has a predefined mapping to a named
glyph, the glyph is substituted, irrespective of position of the glyph
in the PUA. (4) The OpenType specs take the sequence <> glyph mapping
out of the rendering engine's realm and places the onus on the font
Can somebody please elaborate on this? Or at lease provide some
pointers to documentation?
-- Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/ Distribute Free Software -- Help stamp out Software Hoarding!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 30 2008 - 03:22:46 CDT