W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org > July to September 2015

RE: FVS Assignment for A

From: <jrmt@almas.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:38:53 +0900
To: "'Badral S.'" <badral@bolorsoft.com>, <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01d0d30d$51c64bd0$f552e370$@almas.co.jp>
Hi Badral,

> Exactly. Thank you for the correct direction. I sent an email to raise
this point actually, 
> by terms like top-down, bottom-up approaches to develop fonts.
Yes. I agree this. We really need one basic principle (no matter its name
is) for Variant Form Mapping.

I had one draft send out last week. Would you please add your consideration
or 
Create your owns be one of the discussion main stream of this kind of
discussion.

I am not able to find this kind of document yet.
Maybe the TR170 what Richard talks is the one. But the URL is getting http
error now.

Thanks and Best Regards,

PS. I am going to travel in China tomorrow. Maybe my response will be
delayed.

Jirimutu
==========================================================
Almas Inc.
101-0021 601 Nitto-Bldg, 6-15-11, Soto-Kanda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
E-Mail: jrmt@almas.co.jp   Mobile : 090-6174-6115
Phone : 03-5688-2081,   Fax : 03-5688-2082
http://www.almas.co.jp/   http://www.compiere-japan.com/
==========================================================



-----Original Message-----
From: Badral S. [mailto:badral@bolorsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 6:28 AM
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Subject: Re: FVS Assignment for A

Hi,

On 09.08.2015 20:00, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> But <A-isolate, FVS1> is to be rendered as default isolated E! That is 
> agreed by all fonts and definitions. The purpose of free variation 
> selectors is to overrule the decisions of the basic context rules.
Exactly!
> -----------
>> What I am talking is we need this kind on mapping separately in the 
>> individual font or define it common to all font?
> Each font has its own mappings.  For example, in one font identical 
> glyphs corresponding to different codepoints may have different 
> PostScript names.  Another font might have no PostScript names.
True!
> After this forum complete and getting conclusion, I think the glyph 
> set TR120 will be updated.
> You're right in principle if you're talking about TR170.  Someone 
> (you?) posted a set of example words, and I can't find the link.  I 
> want to check the spelling of the name Ng.  I've a suspicion it's 
> actually an isolated ANG.
Exactly. The TR170 has to be updated.
>
>> The Variant Form mapping rule is the core.
> I disagree.  The context rules are the core.  The job of the variant 
> form mappings is to overrule the results when they are inadequate.
Exactly. Thank you for the correct direction. I sent an email to raise this
point actually, by terms like top-down, bottom-up approaches to develop
fonts.
>> Just look one cooperation here:
>> 1. Replacing final <BA, A> with < Final_BA_A glyph> one step
>>
>> 2.  Replace BA before A with the <Medial_BA_A glyph>
>>      Replace the A with the <Final_A> by context
>>      Replace <Final_A> after <Medial_BA_A glyph> with 
>> <Final_A_UNENCODED_2>
>>
>> Which is simple and cheap?
> The second - fewer glyphs to write the hinting code for!
>
> Additionally, in the OpenType scheme 'Replace the A with <Final_A> by 
> context' would be part of a whole set of changes 'Replace X with 
> <Final_X>' defined as part of the "fina" feature.  The font does not 
> need to define the context for this change; that is the job of the 
> OpenType layout engine.
Correct!

Badral

--
Badral Sanlig, Software architect
www.bolorsoft.com | www.badral.net
Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 01:39:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:05 UTC