Peter Kirk wrote: > 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.
The fact is that these glyphs are not necessarily *required*. Each Indic script has a relatively small set of glyphs that are absolutely required in any font, but also an unspecified number of ligature that may or may not be present. This may depend from the language (e.g., Devanagari for Sanskrit typically uses more ligatures than Devanagari for Hindi), or even simply be a matter of typographical style. _ Marco
