Simply stacking glyphs doesn't really work In Tibetan either. The size and shape of the consonants needs to be adjusted as the stacks get more and more complex - particularly in fonts, and situations where where there are vertical constraints. So each Tibetan glyph also needs to be adjusted depending on what occurs above or below. The descender of one Tibetan glyph may often occur to the right or left of another glyph in a stack. Very rarely you find occurrences of vowels written in the middle of a stack - or even one consonant written horizontally beside another in the middle of a vertical stack. I don't think anything handles these things properly though.
On 14/04/2013, Richard Wordingham <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:44:26 +0600 > Christopher Fynn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In practice, the rendering of Tibetan appears to be far less complex >> than that of Khmer (with its coeng joiner) or that of Indic. > > That's largely because Tibetan puts the consonants in a simple vertical > stack with the vowels at the top and bottom. Khmer has to worry about > subscripts consonants with spacing ascenders to the left and spacing > ascenders to the right. Further, the top-to-bottom length of the > ascenders depends on what is in the stack above the body of such > subscripts. > > Richard. >
