The current naming of Marks & Composites is not assisting in generating Automatic ccmp feature for Hebrrew fonts;
shinshindot-hb
shinsindot-hb
shindageshshindot-hb
shindageshsindot-hb
alefpatah-hb
alefqamats-hb
alefdagesh-hb
betdagesh-hb
gimeldagesh-hb
daletdagesh-hb
hedagesh-hb
vavdagesh-hb
zayindagesh-hb
tetdagesh-hb
yoddagesh-hb
finalkafdagesh-hb
kafdagesh-hb
lameddagesh-hb
memdagesh-hb
nundagesh-hb
samekhdagesh-hb
finalpedagesh-hb
pedagesh-hb
tsadidagesh-hb
qofdagesh-hb
reshdagesh-hb
shindagesh-hb
tavdagesh-hb
vavholam-hb
In order to get benefit of automatic ccmp feature generation;
Please fix names with underscore between mark & glyphs name; such as showing in the following list
Both are possible but there is a difference. The problem is that the names without underscore are recorded as Alphabetic Representation Forms (ARF) in Unicode. They have Unicode values, probably to maintain backwards compatibility with a legacy encoding system. However, if you do not care about that backwards compatibility, you can use the underscored forms (which do not have a dedicated Unicode value), and ccmp will be generated accordingly.
I suppose what you are referring to is the sidebar:
Questions:
Does it make sense to add the ARF to ccmp (i.e. enable sub shin-hb dagesh-hb by shindagesh-hb; when shin_dagesh-hb is not in the font)?
Or should we simply remove the presentation forms from the sidebar, and rather add ligatures? (This makes sense if the ARF or the legacy encodings they refer to have not been in use anymore.)
And if the latter, which ligatures should we add? (Because any ligatures are possible, not just the ones predefined in the ARF.)
I’m affraid I do not know about legacy encoding system;
As far as the glyph info database is maintained … I thought that naming at the back end of Glyphsapp would not make a difference;
Yes I’m referring to the side bar;
Hence, working with none-Nice names ccmp feature is possible to be generated automatically !
I think it cannot be ligatures… It is about letterforms and Marks
In the past with old technologies; designers could not abandon the presentation forms and marks positioning; Today it seems possible.
The following video demonstrates that Alphabetic Representation Forms are still “live” Marks and Not compound ! namely Two glyphs not a single glyph, even when you try inserting from the Adobe Glyphs menu. I have not tested on MS office… other colleagues have no answer if ARF may be dispensable !!
