On 11/06/2004 14:39:48 James Kass wrote: >-------------- Original message from "Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin" : >-------------- >> On 2004.06.10, 17:11, I wrote: >> >> > U+0251 U+0361 U+0302 U+028A as given by BabelMap+Code2000 (see >> > attached) is not productively different from U+0251 >> > U+0302 U+0361 U+028A (see attached)... >> >> Now attached. (Both GIFs are identical, byte by byte, though I swear >> I made them separately: click the characters in BabelMap, PrtScr, >> paste into PhotoShop, crop, resample, save!) > >You're getting default positioning only, it looks like your system >doesn't support OpenType combining diacritic positioning for Latin. > >Even with OpenType experimental support here, my display looks like >the GIF you sent. I'll try fixing this,
Um, good luck. I am not sure it is possible to correctly position double-diacritics with OpenType logic. Specifically, the vertical position of the double-diacritic must be adjusted so that it is above the *taller* of the preceding and following combining sequence. AFAIK, such logic isn't feasible in OpenType. >Fonts and rendering systems probably aren't ready for this kind of >combination yet. SIL Graphite handles it, but then we don't [yet] have wide-spread availability of Graphite-capable applications. >> > U+0251 U+0361 U+0302 U+028A as given by BabelMap+Code2000 (see >> > attached) is not productively different from U+0251 >> > U+0302 U+0361 U+028A (see attached)... > >Following the "inside-out" rule, the first sequence should render >correctly, the second sequence should not. Not sure what you are saying here or what you mean by the inside-out rule. The two sequences are canonically equivalent and should look identical. Bob
