From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2007 - 00:37:12 CDT
I□find□this□reasoning□bizarre.↓
↓
Simply□because□someone□might□want□a□visible□symbol□of□a□character↓
in□unusual□circumstances□like□a□code□chart□or□Show□Hidden□Mode,↓
the□font□designer□is□supposed□to□have□an□abnormal□glyph?↓
It□is□the□*unusual*□case□that□calls□for□*unusual*□glyphs,↓
including,□those□for□space,□tab,□and□others.□And□since□fonts□cannot↓
be□depended□on□to□always□have□"Show□Hidden"□glyphs,□*those*↓
are□the□ones□that□need□to□be□handled□specially□in□rendering.↓
↓
Mark↓
On 8/24/07, James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Any font may be called upon to populate a chart.
>
> The attached graphic shows a word in Mongolian from a page by Andrew
> West in the application BabelPad with both default rendering and the
> rendering option which displays text as single characters. Where's
> the problem?
>
> The control pictures are coming from the font-in-use, which is the
> absolute *best* place for any renderer to get the outline data from.
>
> If the font-in-use does not support VS characters, then I expect the
> renderer to use the missing glyph from that font. That makes the
> fact that the selected font is inappropriate visible to the author/user.
>
> Best regards,
>
> James Kass
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
> >Sent: Aug 24, 2007 9:46 AM
> >To: James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net>
> >Cc: Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org>
> >Subject: Re: Apostrophes at www.unicode.org
> >
> >If that is a common perception, then we certainly need to correct that
> >misapprehension.
> >
> >For general-purpose fonts, the default ignorable code points should be
> >invisible, just like whitespace characters should be invisible.
> Specialized
> >fonts, such as those used for a "Show Hidden" mode or for code charts,
> may
> >well want to have visible glyphs for default ignorables, whitespace
> >characters, controls, confusable characters, and so on, so that people
> can
> >see the internals of their text. But those are very specialized cases.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >On 8/24/07, James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark Davis wrote,
> >>
> >> >A similar annoyance is the fact that so many fonts don't map the
> >> >default-ignorable code points (like variation selectors) to a
> zero-width
> >> >invisible glyph by default.
> >>
> >> It's up to individual font developers to weigh the pros and cons
> >> of including control picture glyphs for such characters, as it
> >> should be.
> >>
> >> Mapping characters like VS to zero-width no outline glyphs would
> >> mean, for one thing, that applications which give the user the
> >> option of displaying control characters (and related items) would
> >> not be able to get appropriate outlines for such characters from
> >> the font. Opinions on this differ, as discussed on this list in years
> >> past.
> >>
> >> If an OpenType font supports a sequence which involves a VS, the
> >> user won't see the control picture. If the font doesn't support
> >> the particular sequence, it can be helpful if that is reflected in
> >> the display.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> James Kass
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Mark
>
>
-- Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 26 2007 - 00:40:59 CDT