Simone Rondelli commented on FOP-1969:

I see what you mean. So maybe there is a bug in {elideControls} because if I 
comment it out I get the emoji printed otherwise no.

I have as an input a {GlyphSequence} with the following values:

*characters: \u1f468\u200d\u1f469\u200d\u1f466
*glyphs: 1643
*association: [0, 5]

After calling {elideControls} on it i have as output a {GlyphSequence}  with 
the following values:

*characters: \u1f468\u200d\u1f469\u200d\u1f466
*glyphs: 0
*association: []

As you can see the characters are still there while the glyph and the 
association got elided. This makes the following operation like 
{mapGlyphsToChars(ogs)} return an empty array therfore nothing is printed in 
the PDF. 

If I understand correctly the semantic of elide controls you want something 
like this:

*characters: \u1f468\u1f469\u1f466
*glyphs: 1643
*association: [0, 3]

Am I correct or I still missing something?


> Surrogate pairs not treated as single unicode codepoint for display purposes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: FOP-1969
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-1969
>             Project: FOP
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: unqualified
>    Affects Versions: trunk
>         Environment: Operating System: All
> Platform: All
>            Reporter: Glenn Adams
>         Attachments: testing.fo, testing.fo, testing.pdf, testing.pdf, 
> testing.xml, testing.xsl
> unicode codepoints outside of the BMP (base multilingual plane), i.e., whose 
> scalar value is greater than 0xFFFF (65535), are coded as UTF-16 surrogate 
> pairs in Java strings, which pair should be treated as a single codepoint for 
> the purpose of mapping to a glyph in a font (that supports extra-BMP 
> mappings);
> at present, FOP does not correctly handle this case in simple (non complex 
> script) rendering paths;
> furthermore, though some support has been added to handle this in the complex 
> script rendering path, it has not yet been tested, so is not necessarily 
> working there either;

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to