Re: N4106

>
> > If I were designing a font, I would simply make the in/out mark
> attachment
> > point near the top/middle of the parentheses, so that it drops down
> around the
> > "base" mark, and then attaches any subsequent marks as if the parentheses
> > weren't there. I think you're making this too complicated.
>
> But glyphs for combining marks may be of different widths, for example a
> (glyph for a) dot below is much narrower than a (proposed) wiggly line
> below. Or, consider LENIS MARK and DOUBLE LENIS MARK (both for Teuthonista,
> and both apparently used together with parentheses). The usual, and
> general,
> way of handling that is to actually split the
> character-that-goes-on-both-sides of something that may have different
> widths in different instances. Of course you also need width info for
> combining marks. I would still consider splitting to be a needless
> complication here, and instead encode begin/end pairs of combining
> parentheses instead of what is in N4106.

No, the usual and general way of handling this is, if the uni-width of
parenthesis is not desirable for esthetic reasons, to create precomposed
_glyphs_ of the parenthesised diacritic by the font designer which are
mapped to a character sequence.

Szabolcs
Received on Mon Nov 07 2011 - 14:14:29 CST