On 13-04-12 07:13 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 05:29:07PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> Looks correct after adding these. Though, I was under the impression that >> Amiri has much better mark positioning. Khaled, am I missing anything here? > > Are you referring to the fixed Y positions of the marks? > This was a deliberate choice, initially I had them varying as it is the > natural choice, but it resulted in many mark collisions for fully > vocalised text, and fixing one breaks another. Surprisingly, putting > (most of) the marks on the same Y positions fixes a great deal of those > collisions, see the attached image, though it is in’t any less work than > the other.
I see. > I think I went too far, though, some glyph like isolated beh etc. does > not need this, also it sometimes look bad when there is only few marks > in the text, and I'm still looking for a better way to handle both > cases. Right. The sample text that Nicolas had looks particularly bad to my eyes (attached). Say, sad.init, sheen.medi, ain.fina, meem.init those all look like can have much better positioning without collisions that you point out. Thanks, behdad > Regards, > Khaled > -- behdad http://behdad.org/
<<attachment: amiri.png>>
_______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
