On 08/05/2002 04:32:03 AM "James Kass" wrote:
>Since "mapping" is font-talk for assigning a glyph to a code point,
>and ligatures are considered to be presentation forms by Unicode
>cognoscenti, and presentation forms these days are deprecated-on-
>arrival... the sentence above could be rephrased as:
>
> The font designer produced a font where the st ligature
> is mapped to the U+FB06 code point.
Actually, I would suggest the correct wording is
The font designer produced a font where the st ligature
is mapped *from* the U+FB06 code point.
>>> if we did, I doubt "holomap" is what any of us would choose. We'd
>>> probably do some verbing (so common among English speakers, it seems)
>>> and say "cmap" as in "It is almost never necessary to cmap a ligature
>>> glyph."
>>>
>
>How about "It is almost never necessary to map a ligature glyph"?
That's about as good for me. In practice, I'd probably say "it is almost
never necessary to encode a ligature glyph."
>> If someone wishes to produce a display of Tamil text in a program such
as
>> Microsoft WordPad upon a Windows 98 platform using an advanced format
font
>> which contains all of the necessary ligature characters, would it be
>> necessary, in order to get the job done, to have a font where the
ligature
>> glyphs are holomapped?
>
>Yes.
I say the question is unanswerable as I do not recognise the term
"holomapped".
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 08:25:33 EDT