- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:06:53 +0900
- To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUB8zEMuX5YAJVoxVVGE519v_Ro+6+Xkc8XDXi7rGn4Pw@mail.gmail.com>
I'm slow to understand, appreciate your expertise. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org> wrote: > > Not necessarily. And, that is even if you *can* map. For example, if you > have a 'ffi' ligature, there's no way to break in between it without > shaping. > Yeah, let's go with the assumption we can map. That part I can handle. > But even if it was possible, the results are not necessarily the same. > That holds true for all scripts and languages, not just Arabic. It's a > property of how OpenType works. Fonts have rules that match arbitrary > sequences. For example, a font can have a rule such that if there are five > "x" glyphs after eachother, then it will replace the middle one with an > alternate form. This might not be a realworld example, but that's what > fonts can do, and there definitely are fonts that do similar things, in > their 'calt', Contextual Alternates, feature. When you get to script > styles like Nastaliq, it happens ALL the time. But then again, break-all > and caligraphy is a combination we don't have to fully support. However, I > think pretty much any script-style Latin font will also be broken. > Let me rephase my question. When break-all a word of 10 chars at 3: 1. Shape the 3 with the rest as text-after. 2. Shape the 3 without text-after. 3. Shape the 10, find glyphs that map to the 3 chars and use them. I think you're talking about the diff between 1 and 2, correct? Is 3 still differ from 1? If 1 and 3 are the same, it helps our efficiency a bit. /koji
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 03:07:42 UTC