xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: svn commit: r722108 - /xmlgraphics/commons/trunk/src/java/org/apache/xmlgraphics/fonts/Glyphs.java
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:13:32 GMT
On 02.12.2008 18:40:21 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> > 
> > these alternatives are only taken as a last resort before mentioning
> > that a glyph cannot be found. Unicode does list "minus" (Unicode: 2212,
> > MINUS-SIGN) to be related to "hyphen" (Unicode: 002D, HYPHEN-MINUS).
> > Otherwise, I wouldn't have made the change. The change is also not about
> > replacing minus for a hyphen, but for the other way around.
> Ah, so actually the purpose of the change is to add the possibility to
> use HYPHEN-MINUS in place of MINUS-SIGN? The commit message says the
> opposite.

Ok, so I'm guilty of writing a somewhat ambiguous commit message. I can
live with that.

> AFAICT Unicode does not list minus-sign to be related to hyphen-minus,
> rather the other way around. I don’t want to split hairs but since the
> confusion is very easy we have to be careful of what we’re saying.
> And as far as I understand from the code, for /every/ glyph in the
> table, all of the other glyphs are added as possible fall-back glyphs

That's right.

> (example: with {"zero", "zerooldstyle"} zero is added as a fall-back for
> zerooldstyle and vice-versa). I’m not sure this is very useful anyway:
> the usage of the method shows that the first glyph is a ‘common’ one,
> likely to be found in any font.

Bad luck, Vincent, as exactly these alternatives groups have been
introduced for a font which did not contain "zero", only "zerooldstyle".

> Plus, while it makes sense to replace
> minus-sign with hyphen-minus when minus-sign is not available, the other
> way around is not acceptable. Anyway, since in practice this will
> probably never happen, the whole thing can probably be simplified.

Not acceptable under whose authority? You're stating your opinion.

Hey, this is just a mechanism that tries to get a reasonable result if a
glyph in a font is missing. If someone is not happy with the result,
he's free to use a different font.

> > I can of
> > course add a warning if an alternative glyph is used. But I guess some
> > people would find the warning welcome while others might find it a
> > nuisance. Can we get some additional opinions to reach an informed
> > decision, please?
> > 
> > On 02.12.2008 12:22:29 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> >> Hi Jeremias,
> >>
> >>> Author: jeremias
> >>> Date: Mon Dec  1 08:00:50 2008
> >>> New Revision: 722108
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=722108&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> Added "minus" as an alternative for "hyphen" & Co.
> >> Why? minus has nothing to do with hyphen, and the result is likely to
> >> look terrible. I think I would prefer to have a warning rather than
> >> a silent replacement. Anyway, if a font doesn’t even define a glyph for
> >> hyphen, then I doubt it will define one for the true minus.
> >>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> Vincent
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jeremias Maerki
> Vincent

Jeremias Maerki

Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

View raw message