- From: John Hudson <john@tiro.ca>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:54:21 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 06/04/16 17:34, fantasai wrote: > I think you didn't understand what I meant... I meant pairs kerning, > which would be able to handle this perfectly. You just have one of > the possible "glyphs" in the pair be SOL or EOL. See previous comment on existing OpenType GPOS features for optical margin alignment. The model you suggest is similar to an idea that Adobe put forward in the early days of OpenType, which is to have invisible topographical glyphs inserted by the layout engine at the beginning and ends of lines and potentially other places in text block or page layout, e.g beginning and end of paragraph. These glyphs would then be addressable in GSUB and GPOS lookups to obtain topographically contextual behaviour. It's an idea I quite like, but it isn't the model that OpenType went with. OpenType instead assigns such behaviour to features, and relies on layout engines to apply those features to glyphs based on their position. Hence the left and right bounds GPOS features, which are applied as single glyph width/position adjustments, not as pair kerning. BTW, note that in glyph space it is essential to think in terms of left and right bounds, not SOL or EOL. Depending on text direction at the line break, the starting or ending bound of a glyph might be either left or right. JH -- John Hudson Tiro Typeworks Ltd www.tiro.com Salish Sea, BC tiro@tiro.com Getting Spiekermann to not like Helvetica is like training a cat to stay out of water. But I'm impressed that people know who to ask when they want to ask someone to not like Helvetica. That's progress. -- David Berlow
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 17:55:09 UTC