<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">So, are you saying fidelity of text orientations is impossible? <br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>I said what I said:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Initially I pointed out why UAX #50 can’t be expected to decide glyph orientation for all use cases, as well as the importance of fonts being able to override glyph orientation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Then Eric misunderstood my intention, so I explained why, even if we just think about compatibility, fonts need to be granted the ability to override glyph orientation.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Publishers of EPUB publications strongly require fidelity. <br class="">They request implementors to provide fidelity. Kadokawa <br class="">(a big publisher in Japan) created a list of behaviors of <br class="">several EPUB readers for code points used in Japan. <br class="">UAX#50 should be stable with the exception of newly <br class="">added characters. Non-conformant implemenations <br class="">are decreasing and will be avoided by the market.<br class=""><br class="">If fidelity is nor provided, publishers use rasterized <br class="">text, which is not at all accessible. This is really <br class="">a shame.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Talking about theoretical fidelity like this isn’t helpful. We also need to make sure a workaround solution is in place. One can’t assume “fidelity” simply because an architecture says “there shall be fidelity”. Incompatibility issues exist in the wild, forever, and must be addressed.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On the other hand, EPUB is based on markups therefore theoretically it doesn’t need to be restricted by plain text formatting, as it can utilize markups to override glyph orientation. The question is though, is it appropriate to ask EPUB producers to rely on markups to address widespread compatibility issues?</div><div class=""><div class="">
<br class="">Best,<br class="">梁海 Liang Hai<br class=""><a href="https://lianghai.github.io" class="">https://lianghai.github.io</a>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 16, 2020, at 10:01, MURATA Makoto <<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp" class="">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: SFProText-Regular; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Liang,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">2020年8月16日(日) 3:28 梁海 Liang Hai <<a href="mailto:lianghai@gmail.com" class="">lianghai@gmail.com</a>>:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Eric,<br class=""><br class="">>> The behavior specified by UAX #50 is a decent low-level default at most, and can’t address all the use cases. Therefore fonts naturally need to be diverse and address the flexibility required by typography.<br class="">><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">> I disagree with the second sentence, when interpreted anywhere close to "fonts can do anything". We need fonts to do their part. If a U+0041 A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A is displayed by a "B", we can clearly blame the font and declare it useless for rendering text. Similarly if "MANZANITA" is displayed at "MAZNAZITA" by the font deciding to rotate N and Z, we are in trouble.<br class=""><br class="">I’m not sure why you felt the need to interpret the sentence in this way. But it feels like you wasn’t aware of the complete context of the issue. I’m not gonna even talk about UAX #50’s inherent inability of addressing different locale’s different preferences about certain characters’ orientation—now let’s just talk about compatibility.<br class=""><br class="">Implementations are naturally incompatible. Adoption of UAX #50 varies. UAX #50 itself isn’t stable either. New characters get encoded. Old and new products coexist. It’s pretty clear you can’t assume all target environments of a font to have consistency of glyph orientation.</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, are you saying fidelity of text orientations is impossible? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class="">Publishers of EPUB publications strongly require fidelity. </div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class="">They request implementors to provide fidelity. Kadokawa </div><div class="">(a big publisher in Japan) created a list of behaviors of </div><div class="">several EPUB readers for code points used in Japan. </div><div class="">UAX#50 should be stable with the exception of newly </div><div class="">added characters. Non-conformant implemenations </div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class="">are decreasing and will be avoided <span style="background-color: transparent;" class="">by the market.</span></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class="">If fidelity is nor provided, publishers use rasterized </div><div class="">text, which is not at all accessible. This is really </div><div class="">a shame.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Makoto</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><br class="">Now, U+00A9 © COPYRIGHT SIGN is rotated in Word but upright in Chrome. This is just two products. How do I resolve this incompatibility issue? Is this markup’s responsibility?<br class=""><br class="">Best,<br class="">梁海 Liang Hai<br class=""><a href="https://lianghai.github.io/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lianghai.github.io</a><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">mpeg-otspec mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at" target="_blank" class="">mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec</a><br class=""></blockquote></div><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Makoto</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>