Re: decomposed and precomposde glyphs

[Ulrike Fischer <news3@nililand.de>]

Am Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:08:54 +0100 schrieb Hans Hagen:

>> Did you sent the second mail only for me for a reason or did you
>> only forget to add the list? Imho this is interesting for others
>> too.
> 
> well, it had an attachment that you can test which is not meant for 
> context (to which i'll add a similar collapse feature, off by default of 
> course as an escape) .. if that kind of stuff makes it into the latex 
> font code is up to others

I looked at the code and it actually uses an idea that I had already
tried. The problem I couldn't solve was do decompose a glyph.
Looking at an context example it seems that context can do it. The B
with dot below (U+1E04) ends as BU+0323 in the pdf. But how does
context does it? It doesn't happen with a similar latex example.
There the U+1E04 is simply missing.

And why is the dot of the first B better placed than the second?
 

\starttext
\directlua
{
  fonts.handlers.otf.addfeature
  {
    name = "compose",
    type = "ligature",
    data =
        {
          ["Ạ"]={ "A", "̣" },
          ["Ḅ"]={ "B", "̣" },
        },
  }
}

\font\test={file:lmroman10-regular.otf:+compose;}

\test

Ḅ Ạ Ḅ %why are both B in the pdf???

\stoptext




-- 
Ulrike Fischer 
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________