Is it just personal preference, and the ability to make some alternate glyphs accessible in Adobe Illustrator as for the reason to include 'Salt' as opposed to just including a series of Stylistic Sets SS01 etc.?
I'm curious if designers have different practices with their approach to stylistic alternates, or what is considered best practice?
0
Comments
Or should I just stick with the former and add Salt in addition to SS01 and SS02 making it address the same alternates as SS01 (therefore ending up with Salt/SS01 & SS02 as the alternate features)?
Are said choices concerning Salt primarily motivated by Illustrator's (are there other apps with the same limitations?) OpenType limitation?
Is doubling up and having Salt/SS01 addressing the same stylistic alternate features not good practice?
Is there any other reason to implement Salt or not if you're dealing with more than one set of stylistic alternate features?
It's fine. It doesn't hurt anything and it covers the major use cases.
Salt is suported in english-hebrew or english-arabic indesign or You can use this script in any indesign since CS4:
Regards
Sami
feature ss01 { sub a by a.ss01; sub b by b.ss01; } ss01; feature ss02 { sub b by b.ss02; } ss02; feature ss03 { sub a by a.ss03; } ss03; feature salt { sub a from [a.ss01 a.ss03]; sub b from [b.ss01 b.ss02]; } salt;
In other words, the "salt" feature in my implementations is a "logical sum" of all stylistic set features.
and