From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 15:51:08 EST
On 03/12/2003 12:44, John Hudson wrote:
> At 04:30 AM 12/3/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> An adequate proposal for a complex script should surely include a
>> proper account of the script behaviour and sample glyphs of
>> presentation forms. And so such a proposal should include all that is
>> needed for a developer, and is available some time before the new
>> script is officially standardised.
>
>
> I disagree. What you describe may be desirable, but in no way is it
> necessary. What is important to document in a proposal is what is
> necessary to *encode* text, not to display it. Remember that a lot of
> work was done on encoding complex scripts in Unicode before there were
> adequate font and shaping engine technologies in place to implement
> the character/glyph model as envisaged. Also, for some complex
> scripts, especially Arabic, how do you define what is 'needed for a
> developer' independent of the particular script style, individual
> typeface design and specific rendering technology? What is needed for
> Tom Milo to render Arabic using his technology is quite different from
> what is needed to render the same text in the same style in a typical
> OpenType implementation.
>
>
Understood. But in fact TUS contains some quite detailed rules for
Arabic shaping. I am only asking that there should be similar rules for
other scripts.
As for different script styles, there may of course be variants but each
script has a typical variant, and any major deviations from that should
be considered a separate script. I am not suggesting normative rules,
just implementation recommendations.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 16:44:08 EST