From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Sat Jun 11 2005 - 14:05:14 CDT
Kent Karlsson wrote:
>>>(always) be blocked over markup tags.
>>
>>But if one letter is at 20pt and another is at 12pt, how can
>>the form a ligature?
> I wrote: BLOCKED.
I think I misinterpreted that term: I took it to refer to a 'block' of text that included
text on either side of the markup tags. My mistake.
>>as you change the font, you
>>are dealing with completely separate runs of glyphs that will
>>be independently shaped.
> Are you saying that you cannot process ZWJ?
ZWJ is a character, and it plays a role in glyph processing either directly or indirectly.
ZWJ is part of the text, while something like html markup is not part of the text.
> That way the shaping behaviour, both for cursive joining and for
> ligature
> formation, is the same independently of whether it is just a colour
> change,
> a size "change" (regardless of if the the new size is the same as
> before), or
> style "change" (regardless of if the the new style is the same as
> before), etc.
I'm not sure that I follow all of this. As I wrote before, I can see some possibilities
for handling basic Arabic shaping, i.e. substitution of positional forms, regardless of
intervening markup, and colour is a relatively trivial and separate issue since it is in
no way font-specific. But I don't see at all how something like this
|lam|<em>|alif|</em>
Can be correctly rendered, with an obligatory ligature, without either ignoring the markup
or applying it to both letters.
John Hudson
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com Currently reading: Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 11 2005 - 14:06:59 CDT