On 2002.11.09, 20:37, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course we dont need any tag for style and basic face -- after all
we have all those bold/italic + serif|sans math letters in plane 2...
;-)
Here I mean Plane 1, of course -- which links to a near-by thread...
--
On 2002.11.07, 19:37, Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Long live the TAG BOLD and TAG ITALIC!; ah, no]
Of course we dont need any tag for style and basic face -- after all we
have all those bold/italic + serif|sans math letters in plane 2... ;-)
but, in Italian, there always is an
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
You'll probably come back to say, But I was talking about 'ordinary
TrueType fonts'.
No I won't. It's not my personality type to do so. Have a look at the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator for personality type, the key message is that
not everybody has the same
Hello.
There are wonderful words in German like Wachstube
this could mean guards room (Wach-Stube, so st may be
ligated) or wax tube (Wachs-Tube, so an st-ligature
would force misreadings).
In the case of Wachstube, using an st ligature would only 'force a
misreading' if the correct
On 11/07/2002 04:27:32 AM William Overington wrote:
I may argue a point if I consider it right to do so, but I do not argue
something just for the sake of arguing...
I didn't mean to suggest that you do.
Once. A notification in a dialogue box that the problem exists
You're assuming there
Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
I don't believe that English readers encountering an fb
ligature in the middle of the compound word 'goofball'
are confused about where the syllables, and hence the subwords,
end and begin.
That may be because english doesn't use word-concatenations the
way german do:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 09:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As for providing a
notification dialog to say that the text contains c, ZWJ, t but
that
the font doesn't support it, there are no existing mechanisms to
support
that at present, but it hasn't been demonstrated that there
Kent Karlsson wrote:
(Subword boundaries are likely hyphenation
points, whereas occurrences of ff, fi etc. elsewhere are
unlikely hyphenation points.)
I am sorry to always contradict you but, in Italian, there always is an
hyphenation point between two identical consonant letters.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:40:48 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're assuming there is a problem. If I send you a document and I
wanted it to display in Comic Sans but you don't have that font on
your system, so you end up seeing it in, say, Arial, does that merit a
dialog box?
Depends. For a
Kent Karlsson wrote:
(Subword boundaries are likely hyphenation
points, whereas occurrences of ff, fi etc. elsewhere are
unlikely hyphenation points.)
I am sorry to always contradict you
I don't think we always contradict eachother! ;-)
Indeed we seem to agree on that the TAG
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:57:04 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for providing a
notification dialog to say that the text contains c, ZWJ, t but
that the font doesn't support it, there are no existing mechanisms
to support that at present,
Sure, if you're writing software that interprets
John Hudson wrote as follows.
At 02:18 11/5/2002, William Overington wrote:
Not at 02:18, it was 09:18.
Well, I suppose it depends upon what one means by a file format that
supports Unicode. The TrueType format does not support the ZWJ method and
thus does not provide means to access
Firstly, the claim that there must be no ligation over subword
boundaries is made only for German.
It is also valid for Slovak and Czech.
ok.
I still wonder a bit why. It does not help the reader in
any significant way, esp. when many different words are
spelled the same quite
At 04:05 11/6/2002, William Overington wrote:
I am thinking here of ordinary TrueType fonts on a Windows 95 platform and
on a Windows 98 platform.
Sorry. I thought this was a discussion about Unicode.
However, I thought that the ordinary
TrueType format would not support ZWJ sequences in
William Overington wrote:
Also, perhaps there could be a method for asking a font to
please display all its ZWJ sequences and their results.
[...]
Now it might be that some advanced font formats can do such things, I
do not know at present.
[...]
Also, perhaps some method of asking a font to
Firstly, the claim that there must be no ligation over subword
boundaries is made only for German.
It is also valid for Slovak and Czech.
I still wonder a bit why.
There are wonderful words in German like Wachstube
this could mean guards room (Wach-Stube, so st may be
ligated) or wax
On 11/06/2002 05:05:17 AM William Overington wrote:
I am thinking here of ordinary TrueType fonts on a Windows 95 platform
and
on a Windows 98 platform.
So, by ordinary you mean a TTF with a cmap table but no GSUB or other
tables that perform glyph transformations (though fonts containing such
John Hudson wrote as follows.
Here's an exercise for your enthusiasm, William: devise the form of the
perfect .notdef glyph. It needs to unambiguously indicate that a glyph is
missing, i.e. it should be something that can easily be mistaken for a
dingbat, and it needs to be easy to spot in
At 08:04 11/6/2002, Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
There are wonderful words in German like Wachstube
this could mean guards room (Wach-Stube, so st may be
ligated) or wax tube (Wachs-Tube, so an st-ligature
would force misreadings).
In this rare case both readings make sense, but there are
many more
Thomas Lotze wrote as follows.
William Overington wrote:
I don't know for certain but I suspect that it is that font designers
do this so that people can use an application such as Microsoft Paint
to produce an illustration using the font. In the absence of regular
Unicode code points for
William Overington wrote:
Well, I suppose it depends upon what one means by a file format that
supports Unicode.
In my reply, I understood by that term a font which both uses Unicode
code points and employs Unicode control character mechanisms. Only in
conjuction with these mechanisms does the
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
Another comparison: this reminds me
of ASCII graphics where one tries to get graphics effects without having
graphical capabilities. It works to a certain extent but is a workaround
at best.
FIGlet is a rendering engine (and associated font format) that uses
ASCII
German is indeed a special case, and there are various ideas
for how best
to handle German ligation. Clearly, inserting ZWJ where one
wanted ligation
-- or, perhaps, ZWNJ where one didn't want it -- is an
option. Using ZWNJ is probably a better solution,
Why would not SOFT HYPHEN be
On 11/05/2002 03:18:55 AM William Overington wrote:
I am unsure as to
whether, in formal terms, TrueType is a file format that supports
Unicode
Absolutely. Every TrueType font on Windows has always made use of Unicode;
every TrueType font shipped by vendors like Microsoft has conformed to the
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 02:18 AM, William Overington wrote:
Well, I suppose it depends upon what one means by a file format that
supports Unicode. The TrueType format does not support the ZWJ method
and
thus does not provide means to access unencoded glyphs by transforming
certain
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Firstly, the claim that there must be no ligation over subword
boundaries is made only for German.
It is also valid for Slovak and Czech.
--
---
| Radovan Garabík
Thomas Lotze asked.
Why below 255?
I don't know for certain but I suspect that it is that font designers do
this so that people can use an application such as Microsoft Paint to
produce an illustration using the font. In the absence of regular Unicode
code points for the ligatures, a font
William Overington wrote:
I don't know for certain but I suspect that it is that font designers
do this so that people can use an application such as Microsoft Paint
to produce an illustration using the font. In the absence of regular
Unicode code points for the ligatures, a font designer
On 11/04/2002 06:11:35 AM Thomas Lotze wrote:
So far the theory is very clear, and as far as plain text is concerned,
seems to be directly applicable. However, if I have a typeset document,
say in PDF format...
If you've got a PDF document, it is encoded entirely in terms of glyphs.
There is no
On 11/02/2002 10:22:52 AM Thomas Lotze wrote:
Regardless of how the document is coded, the fact remains that ligature
glyph shapes have to be stored in the font, at some code point.
No, they do not. For instance, in recent versions of Times New Roman, you
will find 208 glyphs that are not
On 11/02/2002 04:43:40 PM Thomas Lotze wrote:
I don't see any harm in assigning standard UVs to ligatures
other than that users who don't understand the difference between font
encoding and text encoding will be encouraged to use them in documents.
I don't consider that harm insignficant. Also,
On 11/02/2002 03:59:53 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
Using ZWJ to control ligation is admittedly a new concept, and it may
not have been taken up yet by many vendors, but that seems like a really
poor reason to discourage the Unicode approach.
I think not all vendors are entirely happy with it, at least
On 11/02/2002 08:24:06 AM Thomas Lotze wrote:
Indeed, it seems more likely that one
would need to use a Fraktur font with ligatures encoded with a code
number below 255,
Why below 255?
It's a good question, why below 255. It indicates a lack of understanding
of how fonts work -- at least
On 11/02/2002 10:06:53 AM jameskass wrote:
Many Unicoders regard the PUA as some kind of a Phantom Zone
into which all of the bad glyphs are banished forever, never
to again be mentioned in polite society.
That's not how I would characterise the situation at all. It's that
they're tired of
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Using ZWJ to control ligation is admittedly a new concept, and it may
not have been taken up yet by many vendors, but that seems like a
really
poor reason to discourage the Unicode approach.
Proprietary layout features in OT-savvy
John H. Jenkins jenkins at apple dot com wrote:
Remember, though that the Unicode approach is that ZWJ is *not* the
preferred Unicode way to support things like a discretionary ct
ligature in Latin text. The standard says that the preferred way to
handle this is through higher-level
At 15:09 11/3/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
This is what I am proposing be changed: fonts and/or rendering engines
(wherever the intelligence lies, depending on the vendor technology)
should be updated to recognize letter + ZWJ + letter (and similar
combinations of 3 or more letters) as a request to
At 07:18 + 2002-11-02, William Overington wrote:
These are my own Private Use Area code point allocations for various
ligatures. They are not in any way a standard yet they are a consistent set
which may be useful to those who wish to use them. The only use I know of
any of them in a
, November 01, 2002 05:59
Subject: Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
the alphabetic presentation forms starting at UFB00 contain a number of
ligatures for latin scripts, among them the more common ones like fi and
fl, but also rather exotic ones like st.
Those exist
On 11/02/2002 01:18:43 AM William Overington wrote:
The matter of ligatures arises fairly often in this discussion forum
Mostly because there is a regular flow of newcomers who haven't yet
learned about the Standard in detail and who fail to check the FAQ page
before raising the issue, or
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:18:43 -
William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In relation to regular Unicode the policy is that no more ligatures
are to be encoded. My own view is that this should change. However,
that is unlikely to do so.
I agree with you. Ligatures may have semantics
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:38:36 +
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:18 + 2002-11-02, William Overington wrote:
These are my own Private Use Area code point allocations for various
ligatures. They are not in any way a standard yet they are a
consistent set which may be
Michael Everson wrote,
James, if you would kindly take these crap out of your font we could
put an end to this silliness.
If I want to encode the ct ligature, I can use c + ZWJ + t. But,
if I want to display the ct ligature on the tools available here, U+E707
is the only option.
If someone
Thomas Lotze wrote,
... Why
shouldn't he be allowed to use the Private Use Area just as he
personally sees fit?
Many Unicoders regard the PUA as some kind of a Phantom Zone
into which all of the bad glyphs are banished forever, never
to again be mentioned in polite society.
Others consider
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:06:53 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ZWJ (zero-width
joiner), for example, requests the OS and font to provide a connected
or joined glyph in substitution for the string in the display, if such
a glyph is available in the font.
In the meantime, I found out about
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:21:06 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is possible because, other than the cmap
(character-to-glyph mapping) table, all of the other tables in
the font use a glyph index [...] internally.
Such glyphs, since they can't be directly called, are only accessible
via
: Saturday, November 02, 2002 6:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:38:36 +
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:18 + 2002-11-02, William Overington wrote:
These are my own Private Use Area code point
At 07:24 11/2/2002, Thomas Lotze wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:18:43 -
William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In relation to regular Unicode the policy is that no more ligatures
are to be encoded. My own view is that this should change. However,
that is unlikely to do so.
I agree
At 10:55 11/2/2002, Thomas Lotze wrote:
How does this compare to unmapped glyphs in Type1 fonts, which can be
made accessible by re-encoding the font? Are they hidden at a deeper
level, or is it essentially the same thing? Do they get glyph names so a
program that can parse the font file can
At 09:22 11/2/2002, Thomas Lotze wrote:
In the meantime, I found out about ZWJ (this one could be mentioned in
the FAQ, BTW). Now I agree that it is preferable not to use ligature
code points in documents. However, this isn't a matter of principle, it
just avoids having to resolve ligatures into
John Hudson tiro at tiro dot com wrote:
It should be noted that using ZWJ is a valid way to encode the
desirability of a ligature in plain text, but it is far from being a
guarantee of displaying such a ligature. There are a lot of fonts out
there with glyph substitution lookups that will
At 14:59 11/2/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
It should be noted that using ZWJ is a valid way to encode the
desirability of a ligature in plain text, but it is far from being a
guarantee of displaying such a ligature. There are a lot of fonts out
there with glyph substitution lookups that will
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 11:41:47 -0700
John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ironically, the sequence c+ZWJ+t is more likely *not* to display as a
ligature, since the ZWJ interferes with the sequence recognised by the
font lookups.
Does this mean that it is indeed common practice to replace every
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 11:19:41 -0700
John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you use PUA
codepoints for glyph variants in text, you immediately lose all the
benefits of a clean character/glyph distinction:
I understand that perfectly well, and now that I've learnt about ZWJ I
don't see any
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
Regardless of how the document is coded, the fact remains that ligature
glyph shapes have to be stored in the font, at some code point.
No, this is an error. It is not the case that every glyph in the font
must correspond to a single Unicode character. Some glyphs may
Hi,
the alphabetic presentation forms starting at UFB00 contain a number of
ligatures for latin scripts, among them the more common ones like fi and
fl, but also rather exotic ones like st.
However, I find there are a couple of other ligatures in use, namely the
ct ligature (for instance to be
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
the alphabetic presentation forms starting at UFB00 contain a number of
ligatures for latin scripts, among them the more common ones like fi and
fl, but also rather exotic ones like st.
Those exist basically for compatibility and round-tripping with non-Unicode
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Lotze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures
Hi,
the alphabetic presentation forms starting at UFB00 contain a number of
ligatures for latin scripts, among them
58 matches
Mail list logo
