RE: Off-Topic: Overriding

I had meant to ask you what M17n is?

Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Off-Topic: Overriding

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:08:41 +0100
"Badral S." <> 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?


Received on Sunday, 22 November 2015 08:55:04 UTC