On 07/23/2012 11:54 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: >> With HarfBuzz Indic shaper, our goal is to track Uniscribe shaping as closely >> as possible (while it makes sense). > > Hi -- while I note your words within parans, I wonder why you have > chosen Uniscribe as the standard? Is it simply because it is widely > deployed? Despite MS's QA, there *might* be problems in Uniscribe's > rendering (I don't use Windows 7 so I'm not sure about its rendering) > -- in which case would the bug have to be fixed in Uniscribe first > before it can be done for HB? (Mind you, I'm just wondering here, > since I haven't actually run into such a sequence...)
Because there is no other authoritative source. The OpenType specs are simply not enough. And Pango / HarfBuzz.old / ICU implementations are buggier than you want to know. So, for now, Uniscribe is the reference, but we do depart from it on a case by case basis when it makes sense (ie. we think Uniscribe is doing something wrong and we can do better.) behdad _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
