Hi Adam, I fully agree with your assessment in principle. However, I have to decide between:
1) Exposing an stable API for such output, which will be inflexible and takes time, of 2) Figure out a way to enable it at compile time with no stability guarantees, which would not be as convenient to use. As I said before, I'm open to the idea, let me think about it and see what I can offer. behdad On 08/28/2012 08:13 PM, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote: > On 12-08-29 01:20, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> I agree. But that's not the primary goal of HarfBuzz, and distracts us >> from the main goals. I'll see what I can do. > I believe with such an ultra-verbose output, complex-script font > developers (even of proprietary ones) would be compelled to run the tool > using the "ot" and "uniscribe" backend, and report inconsistencies -- > which would, after all, help HarfBuzz as well. > > In a way, what I'm proposing is not at all contrary to the comprehensive > testing effort. And since Uniscribe is probably as much a matching > matching target as the Pango shapers are, this could be very useful. > You'd have a chance to tap at developers of high-end complex script > fonts such as, say, Tiro Typeworks. You give them a useful tool, they > give you useful feedback which helps improve your product. > > Mostly, their primary deployment target is Uniscribe, so they won't > spend their time testing HarfBuzz *unless* you provide them with > something that doesn't exist yet. Such a tool doesn't, and HarfBuzz is > the perfect place to do such a job. As I mentioned earlier, I don't > insist exactly on the XML syntax I proposed. It does pretty much > exemplify in quite some detail what I think would be very useful, > though. Oh, BTW, the whole "processing" part could be optional. For some > scenarios, just the input and output, but with exact information, would > be of great use. > > I believe that a very good way to test implementations of layout engines > is to collaborate with implementors of fonts (especially: complex fonts) > which run on such layout engines. > > There won't be many users of the functionality I'm proposing, but the > ones who will use it will be of very high value for the development of > HarfBuzz, I believe. I don't develop fonts myself, so I don't actually > really have a stake in this. But I know from conversations with people > who do develop complex fonts that this functionality is of great > potential value for them. BTW, if some financing would be needed so you > could find a developer who would do this, please let me know and I think > I'll be able to gather something. > > Best, > Adam > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
