On 6/13/2021 10:54 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 6/13/2021 9:42 PM, Richard Mahoney wrote:
I'm wondering if there has been a regression in the rendering of
CJK recently? I'm attaching two screenshots from the same code:
one with lmtx-20210509 (correct); and the other lmtx-20210613
(incomplete).
no, it's a side effect of something else (which shows up with these
extremeely large fonts > 65k glyphs) .. i'll look into it tomorrow
I uploaded a new lmtx ... kind of experimental because I changes some of
the background bist that deals with embedding. The problem is that we
need to deal with the previously reported clash between different
unicode entries that share shapes (normally no issue but in this case it
was a side effect of 'effective' monospaces where the font decided that
invisible shapes should he visual anyway) as well as with the fact that
soem cjk fonts have many duplicates which makes us cross the 65 boundary.
The variant approach is ok but I might have overlooked some soecial
cases. Because this also drops 'stream compatibility' between mkiv and
lmtx (which had already become somewhat loose) I can now also clean up
(simplify) some other parts of the font system but let's do that
stepwise (I'm in no hurry here).
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
