This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Typography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

There's another list of OpenType features at OpenType feature tag list. I think it should be merged there. Pcap ping 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page's title is ambiguous. It should be changed to something like "List of typographic substitutions." I came here looking for a list of terms for features of a letter, such as the bowl and ascender. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't like the title either. But "List of typographic substitutions" wouldn't be right, as many of these features are about glyph positioning rather than glyph substitution. Also, OpenType, AAT and Graphite all use the term feature, so this ought to be in the title. Perhaps something like "List of smartfont features" would be best, though currently we don't even have a smartfont article. --Zundark (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... There is another Unicode-compliant smart-font technology and rendering system with features: Graphite – kgyt (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a mention of Graphite. However, my understanding is that there are no standard Graphite features - each font makes its own features, with whatever names it likes. If that's right, then we can't list Graphite features in the same way that we list OpenType and AAT features, but we could have a section briefly explaining the situation. --Zundark (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't find a tag 'rmnz' in the OpenType feature registry. Likewise 'trns'. What are these?Stevan White (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These were added by 37.24.146.197, along with a number of other tags (diff). I can't find any evidence that these are defined anywhere, so I suggest we remove them. --Zundark (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed all the tags added by 37.24.146.197. Zundark (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What’s the point of calling Chinese characters (Sinograms, ideograms, etc. etc.) “tetragrams” instead of just “Chinese characters” or even just “glyphs”? Is there a defensible reason for not just using a more-common term? Jim_Lockhart (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tetragram includes stuff like Japanese Kana (which are derived from sinograms), a lot of scripts loosely related to modern Chinese and Korean Hangeul (which are an original development), because the term just relates to the roughly square frame that all glyphs are fit into (even half-width forms etc.). Sinogram is basically a Western umbrella term to avoid Han Ze/Hanzi/Hanja/Kanji… — Christoph Päper 13:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. Then define it somewhere in the article, since it appears in none of the other articles on CJKV glyphs (another term that would cover the same territory and, unlike tetragram, not be confusing or ambiguous) and is defined differently at Tetragram. Ideographs would also not be confusing or ambiguous either, as well as not suffer from tetragram ring of sophistry. :) Jim_Lockhart (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That description is not consistent with its usage with the USE to move preposed subscript characters such as U+1A55 TAI THAM MEDIAL RA (mandatory application) and even U+1143E NEWA VOWEL SIGN E (only when applied to certain base consonants). These are single substitutions (S1), in the former case typically of a glyph by itself. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, so far as I am aware, use with the Myanmar script as described ceased with Unicode 5.1, when MEDIAL RA came in. (The residual use isn't wonderfully clear.) --RichardW57m (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't we distinguish features formally allowing only a restricted range of substitutions from lists of typical types? --RichardW57m (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]