On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 00:38, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 11:51, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote: > > Let me put this in a simple point form using a hypothetical example: > > > > - I have a font (non-unicode) X, which has non latin characters in the > > range of 32 to 127. > > - The same character set is defined in Unicode 3/4 from say 4000. > > - Unicode characters 4001 and 4010 form a single composite character > > which is the same as character 51 in the font X > > - There is no Unicode equivalent to the 4001+4010 combination > > > > Now, if I want to render the composite character 4001+4010, how should > > I proceed? Is there a way to map unicode sequences to actual > > (physical) fonts. Prefarably in the form: > > > > 4001,4010 -> X,51 > > Not really sure what you are asking - maybe you can be less > hypothetical? > > A shaper module's whole purpose in life is to map Unicode character > sequences to pairs of glyphs from particular fonts. That's exactly whhat I wanted. IMHO, mapping unicode character sequences to ghyphs (why pairs?) from a particular font is a general requirement. Therefore, I wonder why is it necessary to write shaper modules for each character set. Of course, there are languages where unicode sequences do _not_ map to individual glyphs, where a character set specific shaper is necessary. But when such a mapping _is_ available, I thought that there should be a standard general solution. > If you have a font, however, that has a incorrect character map > that assigns ligature glyphs to random ASCII characters, you > will have great difficulty getting that to work within the > framework of the fontconfig-based backends for Pango. Therein lies the whole problem. When a unicode character sequence (4001, 4010 in my example) represents a single visual glyph WHICH IS NOT A UNICODE CHARACTER, there is no way to assign a "correct" glyph number in a particular font. Anuradha http://www.linux.lk/~anuradha/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part