Follow-up Comment #4, bug #59402 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > The problem is that any unicode normalisation can lead > to duplicate font entries, since the normalisation is only > concerned with identifying input characters which are the same > (i.e. they are both iota) and takes no account that the actual > glyph shape is different in regard to the context in which > the iota appears, but the user who knows the context rules > will carefully use the correct input code and be surprised > that troff has ignored the difference.
So, how is this handled by other software that uses Unicode and a font that
has duplicate font entries for some glyphs? Surely there's a mechanism to
ensure the user's deliberate code point selection is properly reflected by the
choice of glyph in the font. That process doesn't seem like it would be
troff-specific. Is there some infrastructure groff is missing, perhaps as a
result of being limited to Type 1 fonts (bug #40717)?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59402>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
