It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
The correct and full references are https://wrdingham.co.uk/lanna/test/dalekh.woff and https://wrdingham.co.uk/lanna/test/font_test.htm. I apologise for the typo.'Ligature' is a confusing word. There are ligature glyphs, and there are ligature substitutions, which for many scripts will not yield ligature glyphs. The problems I've seen in developing Da Lekh chiefly relate to applying a ligature substitution to a base (commonly uni25CC) and a mark to yield a mark. The problems don't relate to lookupflags, but rather to with which base and mark glyphs a mark glyph can be associated by an attachment lookup. The OpenType 'specification' does not define this behaviour except for very simple cases.
Simon Cozens said:
"This is perhaps the trickiest part of OpenType".https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/blob/a85461b9b6367d5ce313c800f9efc6a1ad750616/src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh#L991-L1013
WAY KYI said:
It is a lot similar to our language even some text resembled to ours, but yours seem to be more complicated to work with Opentype features.
However, I suspect I've found a bug in Microsoft's processing of multiple sequence lookups.
What is the point of making the ligature of two marks below a ligature glyph? It's more natural to make it another mark below.The main point of ligatures in shaping is that they partly act as two base marks - a particular mark instance may associate with only one part of a ligature glyph.