On 08/10/2003 02:58, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
...
What happens with the current Unicode scheme is that, if the font does not
have a glyph for the ligature <cons><VIRAMA><cons>, nor for the half
consonant <cons><VIRAMA>, nor for the subjoined consonant <VIRAMA><cons>,
the virama is *automatically* displayed visibly, so that the semantics of
the text is always safe, even if rendered with the most stupid of fonts.
I don't understand the specific issues here... But it does seem a rather
strange design principle that we should expect a text to be displayed
meaningfully even when the font lacks the glyphs required for proper
display. I would have thought it better not to attempt to display
properly, perhaps display boxes as an indication of an error or trigger
substitution by a font which does have the glyphs. After all, presumably
those who write Bangla regularly will use a font which does have the
necessary glyphs, and those who write it occasionally should be warned
to find and change to such a font rather than misled into thinking
things are OK.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
