- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:55:40 +0100
- To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, Lina Kemmel <LKEMMEL@il.ibm.com>, Matitiahu Allouche <matitiahu.allouche@gmail.com>
- CC: 'Behdad Esfahbod' <behdad@behdad.org>, 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, public-i18n-bidi@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
On 27/05/2014 17:43, Asmus Freytag wrote: > I think inserting markup between parts of an obligatory (or intended) > ligature is a mistake by the author and requiring complex support to > force this to "work" is counter productive. > > On the contrary, the expectation should be clear that ligatures are > broken, so that authors can get visual feedback and proof their work. The problem I see with this is that one of the many possible ligatures like lam-meem depends on the font used. If the content author changes the font or a device changes the font from one that doesn't support lam-meem ligatures to one that does you don't want to have to go change all the markup or disable the effect. This may however been a different kettle of fish from a lam-alif ligature, since the latter makes it more difficult to separate which part of the glyph represents which underlying character (at least in the form that looks like a crossed ribbon). I suspect, though I haven't tested it, that in general non-lam-alif ligatures such the lam-meem type keep the glyph representations of the underlying characters separate enough to allow differential colouring. A quick test on Firefox shows that it breaks a lam-alif ligature if there is markup between the lam and alif, but that it tries to highlight the right parts of a lam-meem ligature. IE, however, didn't do so. RI
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 16:56:22 UTC