Fixed.
On 07/25/2012 05:13 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > This only applies to the marks that result of multiple substitution i.e. > in Amiri the middle lam of لله is substituted with > <lam><shadda><smallalef>, I don’t think Arabic Typesetting has something > like that. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:58:08PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> This also happens with Arabic Typesetting I assume? >> >> b >> >> On 06/12/2012 06:31 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: >>> I’m not sure if this is related, but I now get no mkmk positioning when >>> the marks are “inserted” using multiple substitution. For example, “للّٰه” >>> is positioned correctly, while “لله” is not though it is the same mark >>> glyphs except they are being added by multiple substation. >>> >>> [uni0647.fina_Lellah=4+721|uni0670=1@-267,-162|uni0651=1@-277,-440|uni0644.medi_Lellah=1+473|uni0644.init_Lellah=0+319] >>> >>> vs.: >>> >>> [uni0647.fina_Lellah=2+721|uni0670=1@-245,-440|uni0651=1@-277,-440|uni0644.medi_Lellah=1+473|uni0644.init_Lellah=0+319] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Khaled >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:14:19PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >>>> Hi Khaled and others, >>>> >>>> I fixed this, among other things, including a major mlig and mkmk >>>> regression. >>>> Please test. >>>> >>>> behdad >>>> >>>> On 05/12/2012 08:54 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> There seems to be a difference between HarfBuzz and Uniscribe on how to >>>>> handle mark positioning when there is multiple glyph substitution, >>>>> namely HB seems to apply the mark to the last component while USP >>>>> applies it to the first component. >>>>> >>>>> In other words, if there is <base> → <base₁><base₂> substitution, the >>>>> sequence <base><mark> will be rendered as if it was <base₁><base₂><mark> >>>>> with HB, but as <base₁><mark><base₂> with USP. >>>>> >>>>> Using hb-shape with “uniscribe” shaper, and the word “سَتا” and Arabic >>>>> Typesetting font, I get >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [uniFE8E=3+343|uniFE98=2+376|uni064E=0@501,-260|uni0640.curvehalf=0@,34+152|uniFEB3=0@,34+840] >>>>> ^^^^^^^^ >>>>> but with “ot” shaper, I get: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [uniFE8E=3+343|uniFE98=2+376|uni064E=0@-11,-310|uni0640.curvehalf=0@,34+152|uniFEB3=0@,34+840] >>>>> ^^^^^^^^ >>>>> though the glyph string is the same, the position of the mark is clearly >>>>> different. >>>>> >>>>> (background: I need this to contextually insert tatweel to avoid mark >>>>> collision in “crowded” places, but with the difference between both >>>>> engines this can’t be reliably done without breaking mark positioning in >>>>> one of them). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Khaled >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> HarfBuzz mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz >>> > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
