Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Kent Lew


Kent Lew
Last Active
Member, Type Person
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
  • Re: Slashed zero with downstroke?

    Didn’t the representation of our modern concept of zero as numeral/figure basically start out as a contrastless symbol from the beginning?

    I would think the relevant question is when in history did contrast get added to harmonize it with the rest of the written/typographic figures?

    (Which then necessitated strategies for differentiation from Oo in certain contexts.)
  • Re: Replace ß by smallcap eszett or smallcap ss?

    Seems to me the whole reason this is an issue is because the small-cap mechanism in the OpenType Layout framework was conceived to operate outside of any text-level casing mechanisms, and so the type designer or font engineer is left with the task of deciding these casing rules, one way or another.

    This is why we have to worry about idiosyncrasies like Turkish dotted i and eszett in our {smcp} features.

    And that makes these small-cap casing choices font-specific, which is a bad place for them (as John has argued).

    If only a font had just the responsibility for mapping encoded uppercase forms to their corresponding small-cap variant, and any lowercase-uppercase case mapping were left to the text-processing engine to handle — according to localization or user-specifiable standards or whatever — then fluid situations like the eszett could be addressed in a much more responsive way.

    A {smcp} lookup is really a bad projectile for trying to hit a moving target like this, unfortunately.
  • Re: Stylistic Set Consistency Between Styles

    For reasons that John and Khaled have already expressed, when I used to work on features for Font Bureau fonts, I would handle Stylistic Sets within a family similarly.

    For example, Cyrus Highsmith is fond of offering both both single- and double-story a’s and g’s in a lot of his fonts. When the roman has double-story as the default and the italic has single-story as default, then I would make sure to separate the Stylistic Sets so that there was no conflicting overlap.

    That is to say, Stylistic Set 1 might change double-story g to single-story in roman styles, while it would do nothing in the italic styles. Conversely, Stylistic Set 2 would change single-story to double-story in italic styles, but do nothing in roman.

    That way, if a user wanted single-story roman g’s in a setting and applied Stylistic Set 1 to the whole paragraph, any italic in the mix wouldn’t unexpectedly change to double-story.

    There is nothing that requires one to have consecutive Stylistic Set numbers within a font. You can skip any that you want. You can write a single {ss20} if that suits your whim.

    The numbering, ordering, and composition of Stylistic Sets is largely at the discretion of the designer or font engineer.
  • Re: Mixing and matching italic and roman shapes in cyrillic fonts

    Type design used to be an industrial design discipline.
  • Re: Trying to create a lightweight fallback font with a substitute all glyphs feature.

    If I’m understanding what you’re attempting to do correctly, then I don’t think that using a GSUB feature will work. For GSUB features to work, the target of the substitution needs to be an existing glyph. You can’t target a raw unmapped codepoint.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to build a CMAP table that maps all possible codepoints to a single glyph outline?