Keyur Shroff wrote:
...
>
> No fallback rendering is coming into picture with your explanation.
Yes, there is. A character sequence <FULL STOP, VOWEL SIGN E> (say)
is very unlikely to have a ligature, specially adapted (and fitting)
adjustment points, or similar. The rendering would in that sense
need to use a fallback mechanism that renders an "approximation"
for this rare combination.
...
> Here is the para you are talking about.
>
> [Quote]
[...]
> should be rendered as if they had a space as a base character."
> [/Quote]
>
> In the text there is no mention of explicitly inputting space character
> before any combining mark that is defective combining character.
The text says "as if". Which I also emphasised before.
> Also, the word "should be rendered" implies that it is recommendation.
Yes. A rather good one.
> > By removing that particular fallback mechanism from implementations
[inserting dotted circle glyphs for allegedly "invalid" combinations]
> > as well as the TUS text! (I'm serious!) This particular fallback
> > mechanism is NOT recommended as it stands.
>
> Note that the text has been written in the section "Implementation
> Guidelines". Can't it be considered as recommendation?
That particular one, no. Just an example [that isn't very good,
outside of a general "show invisibles" mode].
> > But since its mention is erroneously taken as a recommendation, I'd
> > suggest removing also its mention.
>
> This is disastrous! What will happen to the systems which already
> implemented this recommendations!?
It's not a recommendation.
> Will they be considered invalid
> implementation afterwards? What is about stability?
They are ugly implementations as they are. And will stay ugly
implementations. Stability is good ;-).
/Kent K
