- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:52:34 -0700
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-i18n-indic@w3.org
On 25/04/14 9:32 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: > If a conjunct doesn't display the virama, it's components and associated > vowel-signs, diacritics, etc should be kept as a single unit, but > otherwise the top bar is broken around each akshara. For example, one > would expect to see अंतर्राष्ट्रीयकरण [1] stretched as > > अं त र्रा ष्ट्री य क र ण > > If, however, the virama is displayed explicitly, one would expect to see > the same word stretched as > > अं त र् रा ष् ट् री य क र ण Unless an explicit virama has been triggered by insertion of ZWNJ (see TUS fig9.3), I don't see any 100% reliable way to determine whether a particular conjunct in a particular font displays with an explicit virama or not. For an OpenType font using <dev2> shaping, it might be possible to get an indication from querying the glyph string after GSUB cluster shaping features have been applied -- presuming that the font lookups have been made in a predictable way -- looking for glyphs that map to the virama character. But for the older <deva> shaping it is common for fonts to contain nominal half form glyphs (accessed via the <half> feature) that include a visible virama (below retroflex letters such as ट). In that case you have a visibly explicit virama but nothing in the glyph string to indicate that it is there. Nor can you make an assumption that a specific subset of letters will be handled in this way, because छ may display with explicit virama or with a true half form depending on the individual typeface design. JH
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 19:53:03 UTC