Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Nov 23 2008 - 13:08:55 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"

    Karl Pentzlin <karl dash pentzlin at acssoft dot de> wrote:

    > Thus, custom-fitting is not "necessary" for virtually all
    > combinations. It is a fine tuning for typographical quality, the
    > necessity of which depends how much typographical quality the user
    > needs in comparison to the quality which is accomplished by the
    > algorithm, which in turn depends of the complexity of that algorithm
    > itself.

    I agree with that.

    I took your original post about <04E9, 0304> as saying that these
    combinations needed to look reasonably legible, and for that, it should
    be possible to develop general algorithms that place floating diacritics
    like macrons in a reasonably legible location for a wide variety of base
    letters. If, instead, we are talking about fine typography, then much
    more sophisticated algorithms (or precomposed glyphs) are certainly

    Many of the most widely available fonts don't even have glyph support
    for combining marks such as U+0304. I sometimes wonder if one reason
    for this is that font vendors and designers, knowing they don't have the
    resources (or priorities) to provide fine-typography support for
    languages like Orok, hear the "horrified" complaints on mailing lists
    and newsgroups and such about the inadequacy of solutions that offer
    minimal legibility, and decide it would be safer not to attempt to
    support these combinations at all.

    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 23 2008 - 13:12:36 CST