- From: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:29:33 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On 5.2, Cluster matching: In 1.a, the term "completely supported" is a bit ambiguous. One could consider that a font without any explicit support for variation selectors supports all variation sequences, on the grounds that the variation selector is only encouraging a certain display, not mandating it. Given 2.a, I suspect that you intend for the font to provide an explicit guarantee that the variation sequence is honored. You could add "(including variation selectors, if any)" after "completely supported", if I understood your intent correctly. I also suspect that you actually meant something stronger, i.e. "has entries in the cmap for each of b, c1, c2, ..." Another case to consider is the joiner characters. What does it mean to completely support the sequence <f, ZWJ>? Finally, I am uneasy with the notion that "a font supports or does not support x". Text is not presented to fonts but to layout engines. It's perfectly possible to have a layout engine that interprets joiner characters, and regulates the application of ligating features accordingly. In that case, just looking at the font does not tell the whole story. Viewed another way, your steps 1.a and 1.b in combination are an attempt to describe the layout engine, but I don't think you can be exhaustive; if my implementation is more elaborate, e.g. it can deal with the sequence <U+00EA ê LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH CIRCUMFLEX, U+0308 ◌̈ COMBINING DIAERESIS> when the font only maps e and the combining marks, do I become non conformant? Eric.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:30:34 UTC