On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 14:04 +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:27:01 +1100, Harshula <hash@???> wrote:
> >
> > I don't like the idea of removing this information, touching Vs
> > conjunct, from the encoding and putting it at a higher level. Here's my
> > reason, a Sinhala expert is writing an electronic (unicode) document on
> > the correct and incorrect usage of touching consonants and conjunct
> > consonants. If the encoding is identical, how does this expert encode
> > the incorrect usage in the document?
>
> I agree that we shouldn't bring spellings into the rendering level.
> What I mean is that there is no way of forming a conjunct of "ss", but
> they can only be touched.
Hi Anuradha,
So are touching letters only in Pali? And conjunct letters only in
Sinhala? I'll see if I can learn more about this.
> > Actually, if a font doesn't render touching letters, then the best thing
> > is for the font to fall back to rendering consonant al-lakuna consonant.
> > Which is what I think it does at the moment?
>
> The problem there is that there will definitely glyphs for consonent +
> al-lakuna combinations, but not for consonent + ZWJ + al-lakuna
> combination. When there is a consonent + al-lakuna + ZWJ + consonent
> combination and no glyph is available, the rendering engine will still
> display consonent + al-lakuna as a single glyph.
That's a very good point!!
Is there anyway a font can map consonant + ZWJ + al-lakuna to consonant
+ al-lakuna if it's missing the glyphs? I don't know much about fonts,
but that would appear to be one workaround.
cya,
#
_______________________________________________
Sinhala mailing list
Sinhala@???
https://secure.linux.lk/mailman/listinfo/sinhala
(text/plain)