On 31 Jan 2014, at 23:46, Daniel Spreadbury wrote:
>> Is it possible to define behaviour what happens when a font only has
>> "default parentheses" but no specialized ones?
>
> Not really within SMuFL, as far as I can see. It may be possible for a
> specific font technology to include a means of "falling back" to another
> glyph in the event that a glyph at a specified code point is not present
> within a font (I haven't researched this), but that is probably too
> advanced and/or too specific a technology for us to adopt as a
> recommendation in SMuFL, given that it is supposed to present as low a
> barrier as possible for adoption by font and application developers.
Such fallback happens independently of any particular font technology;
usually it's somewhere in the font stack of a particular system, and the
final behavior often depends on the client application itself. Doing any
sort of glyph fallback at the font level would first require a dummy
glyph at the code point in question, and this isn't a good idea in
general as it would only deceive the font stack that the glyph requested
exists and it's the glyph the user expects.
Regards,
Grzegorz Rolek
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
