El 14/06/2011 16:52, Shriramana Sharma escribió:
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!
To my knowledge, it seems to be true at least in latin, korean,
hiragana, kanji, arabic, and some others we supported until now. Now, we
begun to deal with harfbuzz and ICU because we also need to support
Devanagari and Thai. So if these two scripts have non-codepointed glyphs
I will have a good reason to force the redering guys to change their engine.
_______________________________________________
HarfBuzz mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
