From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2008 - 15:27:02 CST
John Hudson wrote:
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > t + double-inverted-breve + CGJ + dot above + s
> > perhaps, but IMHO that would be an ugly hack.
> CGJ-insertion is the Unicode-approved method for preventing
> canonical re-ordering of
> marks, so it certainly isn't a hack in that sense. Whether
It's a standardised ugly hack. Standards aren't always neat.
> the results are visually ugly
> depend on how the layout engine handles that CGJ and what the
> given font does when
> presented with the resulting glyph string. There's no reason
> why it couldn't be made to look correct and not ugly,
Indeed, but I was not referring to visual ugliness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 11 2008 - 15:28:09 CST