- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:51:56 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I don't think this is the right way to fix the problem. The UAX29 definition of extended grapheme cluster works just fine in Thai/Lao when what you want is a grapheme cluster. The issue is that letter spacing is not a logical operation on characters; it's a visual operation on glyphs. In other words, there are two distinct kinds of cluster: a) there is a _logical_ cluster of _characters_, which is used for selection, cursor movement and other editing operations; this is the UAX29 extended grapheme clusrer b) there is also a _visual_ cluster of _glyphs_, which is what you need for letter-spacing In many scripts, these cooincide, but Thai/Lao shows that they don't always do so. So I think the right approach is to fix the definition of letter-spacing to say that the units between which you add extra space will not always correspond exactly to extended grapheme clusters: implementations should do the typographically correct thing for a particular script. James > On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:07 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> On 09/21/2013 10:37 PM, James Clark wrote: >> The Editor's Draft for CSS Text says that letter-spacing is applied between adjacent "characters", where a "character" is >> defined as a UAX29 extended grapheme cluster. This doesn't do the right thing in Thai in the case of SARA AM (U+0E33). >> >> For example, to properly letter-space the word คำ (0E04 + 0E33), [...] > > The spec does explicitly allow for tailoring; UAX29 is just a > baseline requirement. However I'm not sure that the tailoring > you're describing is quite in line with the kind that's allowed > by UAX29, so I've broadened the wording a bit and added your > example here: > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#grapheme-cluster > > If you have a spec that I can point to normatively, I'm happy > to do that. :) But otherwise, I think the example will have > to suffice. > > Please let me know > 1. If this is satisfactory, or you want something else. > 2. If it's ok for us to use your wording verbatim. > > Thanks! > > ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 02:52:22 UTC