- From: Badral S. <badral@bolorsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:08:41 +0100
- To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
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