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

Re: Off-Topic: Overriding

From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:08:41 +0100
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Message-ID: <56379899.50709@bolorsoft.com>
Hi Richard,
On 31.10.2015 00:59, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> One that is never rendered, but is instead replaced (or eliminated) by
> another character, possibly by a ligature substitution.  In your
> example above, FVS2 is a "purely formal glyph".  For example, the FVS2
> above is translated to a glyph, but that glyph is not actually
> displayed.  I would implement Rule 2 as a ligation of I.medi2 + FVS2 to
> I.medi, but that it is because I would not trust all renderers to
> handle variation selectors properly.
There exist somehow a cyclic problem at some rules (or interference with 
two rules), when we implement Rule2 like I.medi2+FVS2 to I.medi. Thus 
some time ago, as I remember in 2013, we have rewritten all our rules 
without elimination of FVSs, which means in our example Rule2 = 
I.medi2+FVS2 to I.medi + FVS2.
Is it unacceptable/bad solution?

Badral
> I would hope that the rendering system would preferentially display
> Mongolian text from top to bottom, but otherwise, for the individual
> glyphs, the only script-specific knowledge I would expect to see is the
> choice when to use an isolated, initial, medial or final form. That
> knowledge is defined in the Unicode Character Database, specifically in
> the file ArabicShaping.txt.
>
> Richard.
>


-- 
Badral Sanlig, Software architect
www.bolorsoft.com | www.badral.net
Bolorsoft LLC, Selbe Khotkhon 40/4 D2, District 11, Ulaanbaatar
Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 17:09:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:44 UTC