Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your comments.
On 2011-02-07 22:34:05 +1030, Jonathan Kew
<jfkth...@googlemail.com> said:
So while I think I agree that it would be good for \XeTeXcharglyph to
respect the font's selected OT features, it's important to recognize
the limitations inherent in *any* API that tries to get glyph
information at the level of individual characters. I worry that people
will start assuming that they can identify which characters are
affected by a given feature on the basis of an API like this, which is
a fundamentally flawed approach.
Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense.
I agree with you that it's a flawed approach in general, but it's an
okay approach for a certain class of features. I guess I'm mostly just
thinking of the problems I've had in the past with +sups existing in a
font but either through design or font bug, some "obvious" glyphs were
not being superscripted. Being able to check simple substitutions would
allow better fall-back behaviour in such cases... but as always "get a
better font" is always good advice :)
Off the top of my head I can't think of any other times that I've
wanted to check such things. But I seem to remember I've thought about
it on a couple of different occassions. (How about, say, faking a small
caps $ if one doesn't exist in the font?)
Cheers,
Will
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
