Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Nov 26 2008 - 15:16:20 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"

    verdy_p wrote:

    > I have NOT written that the position adjustment for the next anchor had any effect on the advance width for the
    > position of the next base glyph. I've just written that the fact that diacritics need to move anchors when they are
    > stacked together means that they are affectively advancing those anchors for further diacritics) (but not
    > necessarily the anchor for the next base glyph (the one that we call the "advance width").

    Yes, but you called that 'kerning' and, for the last time because this
    is getting tiresome, that is *not* kerning. Kerning is by definition a
    modification to an advance width (whether one is talking about digital
    type or pieces of metal) and ergo it affects the position of subsequent

    I understand what you are talking about, and the idea of anchor-based
    spatial relationships between bases, between marks and between base+mark
    combinations is not without interest, but calling it kerning is simply
    confusing. Kerning already means something within existing technologies,
    and it implies things that are necessarily distinct from mark anchor


    Tiro Typeworks
    Gulf Islands, BC
    You can't build a healthy democracy with people
    who believe in little green men from Venus.
                        -- Arthur C. Clark

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2008 - 15:20:28 CST