Question.sc should go into c2sc, not smcp

#1

Currently,

sub exclam by exclam.sc;
sub exclamdown by exclamdown.sc;
sub question by question.sc;
sub questiondown by questiondown.sc;

it is auto-generated in smcp but I think it should only be in c2sc. No?

#2

I think so too.

Question: Should all SC punctuation go into c2sc? Can you think of a case where it shouldn’t? The use case would obviously be that a user only activates SC for lowercase. Is there any punctuation that is expected to change in that case?

#3

I don’t think so. If you like to add it to c2sc, give it that suffix?

#4

Why doesn’t all OT feature name suffixes automatically produce that OT feature?

#5

Thats usually what they do. Which one are you missing in particular?

#6

onum, for example.

#7

The figure and small caps are an exception from the suffix to feature rule. the later can use the abbreviation .sc instead of .smcp. The numbers would produce very ugly double suffixes. Because you can have tabular and proportional onums. So we use .osf, and .tosf (and .lf and .tf) instead.

#8

Couldn’t you allow both strategies?

.osf = .onum
.tosf = .onum_tnum
.lf = .lnum
.tf = .lnum_tnum / .tnum

#9

(I had to rename my small caps at one point, yes, but that is taken care of now.)

#10

That’s a good point, Georg. I am now using exclam.c2sc, which auto-generates the features as I want and it is more in line with the existing logic so this is better than adding another auto-magic.

1 Like