From: Mahesh T. Pai (paivakil@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 30 2008 - 03:20:10 CDT
mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp said on Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:02:53PM +0900,:
> I guess you're looking for some standard ligature collections
> for Indic scripts, and you want to assign PUA codepoints to
> them. I think PRC's precomposed Tibetan glyph collection
> (GB/T 20542:2006) is similar approarch. However, such effort
> is out of scope of ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode, and the explicit
> utilization of PUA codepoint (to point an Indic ligature) may
> not be welcomed in Unicode oriented softwares.
This brings me to a question I asked quite a few people some years
ago, and did not receive an answer.
How can one ensure that text created on one rendering system
(rendering/layout engine + font) which uses one method of using glyphs
from the PUA renders same on another system which may or may not use a
different method of using the PUA.
Somebody told me something on IRC, and I have extrapolated that
information to understand that (1) the truetype fonts have a method of
naming glyphs, which can be used uniformly, irrespective of the
position of the glyph in the PUA (2) the layout engine has to have a
mapping from a sequence to a named glyph (3) once the layout engine
encounters a code sequence which has a predefined mapping to a named
glyph, the glyph is substituted, irrespective of position of the glyph
in the PUA. (4) The OpenType specs take the sequence <> glyph mapping
out of the rendering engine's realm and places the onus on the font
file itself.
Can somebody please elaborate on this? Or at lease provide some
pointers to documentation?
-- Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/ Distribute Free Software -- Help stamp out Software Hoarding!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 30 2008 - 03:22:46 CDT