From: John Hudson (john@tiro.ca)
Date: Wed Nov 26 2008 - 15:16:20 CST
verdy_p wrote:
> I have NOT written that the position adjustment for the next anchor had any effect on the advance width for the
> position of the next base glyph. I've just written that the fact that diacritics need to move anchors when they are
> stacked together means that they are affectively advancing those anchors for further diacritics) (but not
> necessarily the anchor for the next base glyph (the one that we call the "advance width").
Yes, but you called that 'kerning' and, for the last time because this
is getting tiresome, that is *not* kerning. Kerning is by definition a
modification to an advance width (whether one is talking about digital
type or pieces of metal) and ergo it affects the position of subsequent
glyphs.
I understand what you are talking about, and the idea of anchor-based
spatial relationships between bases, between marks and between base+mark
combinations is not without interest, but calling it kerning is simply
confusing. Kerning already means something within existing technologies,
and it implies things that are necessarily distinct from mark anchor
positioning.
J.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC tiro@tiro.com You can't build a healthy democracy with people who believe in little green men from Venus. -- Arthur C. Clark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2008 - 15:20:28 CST