W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2013

IVS registry

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:14:21 -0800
Message-ID: <50E70DED.7060303@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Forwarding for public archival. See also
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0518.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0213.html

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: IVS registry
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:44:44 -0800
From: fantasai
To: Steve Zilles

Proposal for improving IVS registry so that it doesn't make font designers
and typesetters cry:

   1. Allow multiple registrations per IVS codepoint, so that a registrant
      can register a glyph collection that overlaps with an existing collection
      without creating duplicate IVS registrations for shared glyphs.

   2. Require all glyph variant registrations to include an explanation of
      exactly how the proposed glyph variant registration differs from all
      other registered glyph variants. If the proposed glyph variant is in fact
      identical (i.e. the registrant cannot describe any difference between
      the proposed glyph and the existing glyph, other than the typeface style)
      to an existing glyph variant, then the registration must use the same
      IVS codepoint as the already-registered glyph.

   3. Create a mapping table that states which already-registered variants
      are identical to each other, and whether any of these are identical
      to fully-encoded characters anywhere in the Unicode repertoire. (This
      mapping may be updated as new characters are added to Unicode or
      mistakes are found.)

   4. Ideally, deprecate the use of all but one of the IVS codepoints in each
      set of duplicates, so that future content will be iteroperable.

This has several important effects:
   1. Tells font designers which differences between registered glyphs are
      significant, as opposed to stylistic, so that they can design glyphs
      that correctly honor these differences.
   2. Prevents duplicate registrations, which avoids wasting IVS codepoints.
   3. Provides a canonical representation of the text without losing any
      information about the author-intended glyph variants, facilitating
      interchange.
   4. Creates a standardized, reviewed mapping so that glyph lookups in
      applications can accurately look up a particular variant in a font
      even if it is indexed under a different IVS.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 17:14:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 4 January 2013 17:14:49 GMT