Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools

From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:11:19 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Hopp: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

    On 29/07/2003 15:44, John Hudson wrote:

    > At 03:33 PM 7/29/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >
    >>> Fonts don't get that clever.
    >>
    >>
    >> Probably not. Do they have any option to set a flag like "the last
    >> character was a vowel" which can then be tested when the next
    >> character is painted? If so there is a chance of detecting this
    >> efficiently without having to be too clever.
    >
    >
    > This couldn't be done in a font, but could be done in a rendering
    > engine like Uniscribe, which keeps track of characters. Font lookups
    > work entirely in glyph space, so their only connection to characters
    > is via the font cmap table.
    >
    > John Hudson
    >
    > Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
    > Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
    >
    > The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
    > interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
    > surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
    > journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
    > media cannibalism.
    > - Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
    >
    >
    >
    Either I have not made myself clear or my understanding of the rendering
    process is even less than I thought. Perhaps I should have said "glyph"
    rather than "character". But the real point is that I am suggesting some
    kind of flag which could be preserved from outputting on glyph to
    outputting the next, on the lines of "the last glyph I output was a
    vowel" or "... a consonant" - with "vowel" or "consonant" defined simply
    as one of a particular list of glyphs or combinations. Is that
    possible, or is the rendering engine unable to preserve any kind of
    state from glyph to glyph?

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com
    http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:45:36 EDT