- From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:58:32 +0000
- To: "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BN3PR10MB03219DBA6C8EBF97C3F506ACAF970@BN3PR10MB0321.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Does anyone have contact with a Harfbuzz engineer that can give us an understanding on how Harfbuzz handles the character immediately preceeding the MVS/NNBSP? Greg From: Greg Eck Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:46 AM To: 'public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org' Subject: NNBSP-MVS Impact With reference to http://r12a.github.io/scripts/mongolian/variants.html As we start the discussion of Mongolian variants, I think it is important to look at the means of implementing the NNBSP and the MVS first. There is considerable variation here. If we can understand how each font implements these two areas, it may bring understanding of why our fonts differ in shaping in these two contexts. I am presenting two documents for discussion dealing with the NNBSP and the MVS model. *If we could have a description of how Harfbuzz, Apple and other rendering engines interpret the character preceding/following the NNBSP/MVS that would be helpful.* These descriptions will be added into the NOTES section of each chart. The attached chart shows the model used in the Microsoft Universal Shaping Engine. Once we have agreed upon the two models, we will start with The U+1820-A (initial/medial )and then proceed to the other five similarly affected code-points U+1828 (medial/final), U+182C (medial/final), U+182D (medial/final), U+1835 (medial/final), U+1836 (medial/final). A premise that I start with is that "Mongolian font implementation does not always follow grammatical rules" - case in point is the U+182C final which is not grammatical, but seems to be the implementation of choice for two glyphs in most of the fonts on display. Greg
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2015 00:59:07 UTC