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

RE: Off-Topic: Overriding

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>
Message-ID: <SN1PR10MB0943CF00F82592471A7A3301AF180@SN1PR10MB0943.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:07:45 UTC