Dear Behdad, > This helps a lot. So how we can document that those are Simple, and make sure > about the ones you were not sure about?
The questionable ones are rare scripts and I would take the risk of treating them as simple given there is no reordering involved. We can always move them with a bug report. One key aspect is that there is no reordering involved, and that's a key issue. Yours, Martin > > behdad > > On 09/08/11 00:36, Martin Hosken wrote: > > Dear Behdad, > > > > Here is a list of scripts that I think shouldn't be using the indic shaper. > > Justification of simple means that there is no reordering or conjuncts > > involved and that there is probably no actual shaping (so just generic > > shaping will be sufficient). > > > > BATAK: ? Simple > > BRAHMI: ? Simple > > HANUNOO: ? Simple > > KAYAH_LI: Simple > > LAO: See Thai > > LIMBU: Simple > > MEETEI_MAYEK: ? Simple > > MYANMAR: Current implementations do not have complex shaping. The > > current indic shaper is inappropriate. This is a temporary measure. Ideally > > the font should be queried for a key feature like blwf. If missing, then > > use generic shaping else use either fixed indic or myanmar specific. > > PHAGS_PA: Simple > > SAURASHTRA: ? Simple > > SYLOTI_NAGRI: Simple > > TAGALOG: Simple > > TAGBANWA: Simple > > TAI_LE: Simple > > TAI_VIET: See Thai > > THAI: No reordering, no conjuncts, some ligation, generic > > shaping sufficient. Note that for the Thai class of scripts reordering > > prevowels would be wrong. > > TIBETAN: Subjoined characters have their own codes. > > > > HTH, > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > > HarfBuzz mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz > > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
