- From: Greg Eck <greck@postone.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 08:54:13 +0000
- To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>, "public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org" <public-i18n-mongolian@w3.org>
Richard, I had meant to ask you what M17n is? Greg >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 5:44 AM Subject: Re: Off-Topic: Overriding 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 tale? 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? Richard. >>>>>
Received on Sunday, 22 November 2015 08:55:04 UTC