Arne Götje (高盛華) wrote: > [..] yes, it depends totally on the font to define the > *position* of the accents (and weather or not they can be > stacked). But it depends on the rendering engine to *interpret* > the information the font gives about the accents. > > BTW: there was no irony in my statement. In Fontforge it is > really easy to define the "anchors". For all pre-composed Latin > based combinations, you can get it done with around 10 anchor > classes, including the stacked ones for Vietnamese.
Is it also easy to create a GPOS table for a font which does not have one? My experience with Fontforge is very limited! In the meantime I found that most fonts on my system do *not* have this table (including the Bitstream Vera fonts and the MS "core" fonts). It seems that including such a table is one of the things that we must "badger" upstream font developers about. > [..] Example: o <U+0301> <U+0358> -> ó͘ This example displays OK on my system with your uming.ttf font (naturally), but also (by "luck") with, for instance, Bitstream Vera Serif (which does not have the combining accent characters, nor a GPOS table). I suppose the rendering engine (pango) borrows the accents from another font (yours, probably). But how can it know where to place them? The base characters in Bitstream Vera Serif do not have anchors. Regards, Jan -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
