Good catch ;) I was wandering why these ones are expected to be handled by the user...
+1 for having a flag for this. As for making it a separate flag, I'm not sure... When I was requesting PRESERVE_DEFAULT_IGNORABLES flag, I did care about two use-cases: 1) Symbol encoding support - thing that is used to encode various crap in the 32..255 character code range, and thus might override U+00AD [SHY], which is of Default_Ignorable property; 2) A "show document structure" rendering option, where some normally invisible characters are handled by a special font (i.e. to visualize some control characters, BiDi format characters, objects, etc.) W/o some "3)" I have no strong feeling that we need a separate flag for handling GC=Cc. Regards, Konstantin 2014-03-06 1:05 GMT+02:00 Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]>: > And we can have a separate flag for preserving them, doesn't have to be the > same flag that is for Default_Ignorables. > > On 14-03-05 03:04 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > Any objection to not rendering Unicode GC=Cc, same way that we don't > render > > Default_Ignorables? That's the U+0000..001F and U+007F and > U+0080..U+009F > > ones. In Chromium that would save us some trouble as currently we have > to > > rewrite those to make sure we don't get any glyph for them. > > >
_______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
