You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The definition of identical glyph use in section 9.5 is not adequate in the general case in which glyph mapping process is context sensitive. For example 'f' and 'i' may map to a ligature glyph for font F0 but to distinct glyphs for font F1. Similarly, for Arabic text and other complex scripts, the glyph mapping process is based on the font's GSUB tables and the set of active features and language bindings.
Glyphs are defined, for the purposes of the HRM, as a tuple consisting of a single character and associated styles. The HRM accounts for complex scripts, where there is rarely a one-to-one mapping between codepoints and glyphs, by reducing the performance of the glyph buffer.
The definition of identical glyph use in section 9.5 is not adequate in the general case in which glyph mapping process is context sensitive. For example 'f' and 'i' may map to a ligature glyph for font F0 but to distinct glyphs for font F1. Similarly, for Arabic text and other complex scripts, the glyph mapping process is based on the font's GSUB tables and the set of active features and language bindings.
(raised by Glenn Adams on 2015-09-21)
From tracker issue http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/428
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: