[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: admin/unidata updates

From: K. Handa
Subject: Re: admin/unidata updates
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:41:54 +0900

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> And I have a couple of questions for Handa-san:

>   . In otf-script-alist, some scripts have the dashes in their names
>     replaced with an underscore, but others don't.  Is there some
>     subtle issue here?  Do we need to use underscores instead of
>     dashes exclusively (e.g., because XLFD specs disallow dashes in
>     font specs)?

I don't remember now why I used both "-" and "_" in script
names.  :-(
But, we don't have to avoid "-" here because XLFD anyway
can't contain a script name.

>   . Should every script we support have a representative character in
>     script-representative-chars?

That's better because that information may lead to a better
font selection.

>     What happens with a script that doesn't?

Then, even if a font-spec contains :script attribute, that
information can't be used to find a font for that font-spec.

>   . setup-default-fontset has a section labeled "for simple scripts".
>     What is a "simple script" in this context?

Such scripts that don't need CTL (Complex Text Layout)
processing, and thus don't require OTF fonts.

>     If additional scripts are added to the database in
>     characters.el, should they also be added to the list
>     in setup-default-fontset?

If we assign representative characters to those scripts, it
is better to added them to that list.

>     What happens with a script that is not mentioned
>     there?

Then a font for a character of that script is selected just
because that font has a glyph for that character.

Kenichi Handa

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]