From: William_J_G Overington (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 21 2010 - 05:45:21 CDT
On Monday 16 August 2010, I wrote:
> Suppose that the author decides to use g U+EE09, which has the following clearance matrix requirement.
> (0, 0)
> (2, 1)
I have now devised a collection of clearance matrix requirements for accessing alternate glyphs for the letter g from plain text.
I have continued to use Private Use Area codes for correctness at the present time: my hope is that character plus variation selector pairs will be encoded in the future.
---- g U+EE04 (0, 0) (0, 0) ---- g U+EE05 (0, 0) (0, 1) ---- g U+EE06 (0, 0) (1, 0) ---- g U+EE07 (0, 0) (1, 1) ---- g U+EE08 (0, 0) (2, 0) ---- g U+EE09 (0, 0) (2, 1) ---- g U+EE0A (0, 0) (3, 0) ---- g U+EE0B (0, 0) (3, 2) ---- Readers interested in experimenting might like to consider the various choices of how the codes could be used within plain text to request alternate glyphs in the following phrase. Eight greengage trees Some readers might like to consider how various alternate glyphs for a letter g could be designed and how each of them could be accessed, if at all, using the above codes. A particular font need not necessarily have a different glyph for each alternate that can be requested. For some fonts, two different requests could result in the same glyph being displayed. The clearance matrix requirements are for the boundaries of theoretical maximum boxes, the boxes need not necessarily be totally filled to full width in any particular font. The letter g would probably have more character plus variation selector pairs specified than most characters, though a letter y may well have the same number as a letter g. I have here tried to provide a good selection so that experience of perhaps the most complicated possibility can be gained. William Overington 21 August 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 21 2010 - 05:48:24 CDT