- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:27:58 -0500
- To: www-svg@w3.org
On 11/15/13 4:07 PM, Jelle Mulder wrote: > If all these characters are incorporated in Unicode character, how is it > possible that SVG fonts do not support them? Because SVG fonts have no usable support for http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=CmplxRndExamples#07420d33 for example. I believe they also have no support for http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=CmplxRndExamples#3e655409 except insofar as those have separate Unicode codepoints. Which they often don't. > Isn't it just a question of having a very extensive set of Glyph? No, it's not, because shaping variants are all considered the same Unicode glyph. > And though archaic writing systems are quite fashionable to > prevent the neighbours form understanding what it is all about Did you really mean to call the third and fourth (and I believe 6th, but not 100% sure about that) writing systems in the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_writing_systems_by_adoption#List_of_writing_scripts_by_adoption "archaic", or did you just not realize how widely used writing systems that require contextual shaping are? > Clearly,.. we don't quite get the issue at > hand here, by lack of experience and imagination. Could you explain it > in brief by example. I hope the links to sil.org above help. -Boris
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 21:28:27 UTC