On 14-06-2011 20:18, Eduardo Castiñeyra wrote:
Well, I was assuming that every glyph could be represented by a unicode character. So it looked more practical to have a list of unicode chars than a list of glyph indices because the last ones are font dependant.
Hi -- I wonder what script you are rendering in which every glyph could be represented by Unicode codepoints! See for example in Indian scripts, lots of conjoining forms and ligatures do NOT have codepoints. So I *think* that a rendering engine which is trying to be able to support all scripts (?) should not assume that all glyphs have Unicode codepoints because that is just not true!
Anyhow, given your situation of rewriting being costly, I guess you will have choose the way forward based on the scripts you have to handle. However I do think it is a good idea to at least mark such code which assumes such things as deprecated or something as it is definitely NOT recommended!
Best regards, -- Shriramana Sharma _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
