Missing Khmer submenu letters, marks, symbols


I’ve changed the way the stuff on gitHub was handled to hopefully make things a little bit easier for editing. You can now edit the csv file, and build a Groups.plist file from there for testing in Glyphs’ Info folder. I’ll write a glyphData.xml writer at some point in the next few days, and some bits are obviously missing/incorrect in the current file at the moment. There’s a Groups.plist file in there for the current set up, to see how it’s going. My issue at the moment is where to put aa-khmer and aq-khmer (currently in marks as a fallback, but can’t see the merit of creating an ‘Inherent’ subcategory of Vowels), and also where to put qaa-khmer and qaq-khmer. I guess one question is: is nesting subcategories an annoyance (bearing in mind that Khmer will itself be nested under SE Asia).

Oh, and I’ve converted Lao, Thai and Burmese entries from GlyphData.xml to csv for the same process (not yet hosted). Lao and Thai are a quick setup as naming etc is all good and its just in case we want to shift around the sidebar. Myanmar/Burmese is a bit out of my zone at the moment though.

Edit: For now i’ve used .below, .pre, and .post for names as this allows to get some consistency with naming for similarly positioned glyphs that are not coeng forms, such as ya-khmer.post etc. This can all change of course :slight_smile:


Side question to @GeorgSeifert and @mekkablue: Did I give you XML glyphData for Cham and Tham scripts? It seems this discussion has snowballed a bit from merely Khmer, and it would be good to get the whole set consistent, even if not fully implemented yet.


The internationalization engineer in me would prefer a term that can be applied across scripts, conjunct form. But in general Glyphs users are designers, work one script at a time, and have to dive into information about that particular script, so script specific names are probably more appropriate: coeng for Khmer, pasangan for Javanese, etc.


One aspect is that on some point, I like to (try to) implement automatic feature code generation. For that it would be helpful, but not necessary, it glyphs that are substituted in the same feature, have the same suffix/name structure. This is just on (not so important) aspect, designer friendliness is more important.


IIRC, everything we wrote for Cham and Tham last year got implemented. But I believe we only did the sidebar menu and the script icon.


Thanks Rainer, yes, I’ve just opened the cutting edge version and they are there. Somehow when cliecking on Cham, the main pane shows all the glyphs from all the subcategories, but Tham doesn’t show them.

When having a little time I’ll tidy up my XMLs and put them on GitHub. I don’t tend to populate the accents field, as almost any marks can appear on any base, so a) it’s not very helpful trying to specify if we’re specifying everything — that’s not what specifying is; and b) Glyphs uses this info to make mark clouds, which for me are useless (never used them), especially if there are hundreds of overlaid marks. And anyway, now we have the mark preview plugin that shows mark positions individually.

I think the sidebar entries should be alphabetised: Cham, Khmer, Lao, Myanmar, Thai, Tham.

@RobPratley Perhaps 17A3, 17A4, 17B4, 17B5 and potentially 17D8 should be moved into a new category ‘Deprecated’. Chapter 16 of the Unicode book (p639) advises not to use them. Alternatively, if we want to keep them in the existing categories, I’d put 17A3 after 17A2 in the consonants section, 17A4 in with the ligatures, 17B4-5 in with the vowels and marks, and 17D8 with punctuation.


There was a typo in the glyph data, the script was written with an uppercase letter but it is supposed to be lowercase.[quote=“Bendy, post:46, topic:7072”]
I think the sidebar entries should be alphabetised: Cham, Khmer, Lao, Myanmar, Thai, Tham.

Good idea.