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

Re: Off-Topic: Overriding

From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:43:55 +0000
To: public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org
Message-ID: <20151102214355.7ada6acc@JRWUBU2>
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:08:41 +0100
"Badral S." <badral@bolorsoft.com> wrote:

> 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?

It sounds as though you have a problem with your font compiler.  Are
you not in control of how it converts substitution rules to the GSUB

I may be worrying too much about whether the renderer will remove the
glyphs derived from variation selectors.  Have you tried your font
with M17n?

Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 21:44:32 UTC

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