> Higher level would make use of ranges/language mapping for fallback.
> DirectWrite fallback is modeled very close if not identical to how
> this data is defined in .compositefont xml format. When using
> DirectWrite layout API, application can rely on implicit fonts being
> selected for different script ranges, and you can set specific
> language per range to get more accurate results. Newer versions
> allow user-defined fallback data, and API-wise it's very close to
> what those files provide.
If I understand you correctly, an application that uses DirectWrite
doesn't need `.compositeFont' files at all, right? What happens with
applications that don't use DirectWrite? AFAIK, Windows offers
composite fonts in its font selection menu like normal fonts...
> You can certainly parse and discard information irrelevant to
> freetype, but that will create ambiguity because same script ranges
> could be mapped to different fonts, and only differ in language.
We are miscommunicating, I think. I talk about taking a
`.compositeFont' file and use it as a font. You are talking about
configurability of `.compositeFont' files, effectively overriding its
contents.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
