On 2010-07-14 12:38:56 +0930, Alexey Kryukov
<anagn...@yandex.ru> said:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0930
Will Robertson wrote:
Why? If they are "historical forms" isn't it better to give them a
meaningful OpenType feature name?
To my mind, an attempt to provide meaningful feature names for every
possible situation was a key mistake of the OpenType standard. It is
especially clear in case of historical forms, because it is difficult
to describe the huge number of possible glyph/character variations with
just one or two predefined tags.
Okay, I can concede that "hist" is a case with fuzzy edges. Still,
surely you're not arguing against having features like onum/lnum!
If a certain style of variation recurs consistently in multiple fonts,
it only seems sensible to me to have a standard OpenType feature to tie
them all together.
As for meaningful names, it's no longer a problem, as the OT
specification currently allows to assign a friendly name (it even
can be localized) to each stylistic set.
But these aren't useful for the XeTeX user. AAT font features are
referred to by name, but inconsistencies between fonts meant it was a
nightmare to use them in XeTeX; one of the original advantages of
fontspec was to provide consistency here so you didn't need to remember
multiple ways to write "Numbers=OldStyle".
Will
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
