> As I've said, I believe that the use of stylistic alternates is appropriate, given that using stylistic alternates does not prevent us from encoding any such alternate glyphs at explicit codepoints, such that they can be accessed by any API that can summon a glyph by way of its codepoint, which I believe certainly includes HTML, SVG and Canvas.
With this qualification in mind, I think we're OK. But let's build this qualification into the standard, such that "compliance" implies the inclusion of such alternate glyphs under explicit codepoints.
> The reason I think stylistic alternates have value is that they make various advanced things (e.g. designing different versions of symbols for different optical sizes) optional for font designers who want to create SMuFL-compliant fonts and for consuming applications that don't want to worry about these issues. I am only proposing the use of stylistic alternates where there are several equivalent versions of the same symbol (e.g. string numbers using digits with serifs or sans serif digits), and I am only proposing the use of ligatures where they are genuinely ligatures (e.g. "mp", "ff", etc.).
That's important to know. I agree that these seem like reasonable places to permit the use of alternates.
best
. . . . . ...Joe
#############################################################
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
