Hi. As somehow who reads and writes on Arabic script, I can say both are good and acceptable and no need to worry.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015, 10:38 PM Jamie Dale <jamiedale88+harfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > We allow rich-text as part of our text layout system, and I've noticed > that I sometimes get different output when shaping sub-sections of text > (for the different rich-text styles) when compared to shaping the full text. > > The screenshot below is text shaped by a single call to hb_shape: > [image: Inline images 1] > > The screenshot below is text where each character was shaped by a separate > call to hb_shape (the buffer used for each shape contained the full text > as shaping context): > [image: Inline images 2] > > Clearly shaping has occurred, as the screenshot below shows each glyph > un-shaped: > [image: Inline images 3] > > I suspect that the first shape has used some ligatures, and the second > shape was unable to do that due to being unable to combine the glyphs (I > have previously seen this with the "fi" ligature in English). > > If both of these forms are considered acceptable, then I'm happy enough, > however I'd just like to sanity check it as I'm not actually able to read > Arabic, so I can't say whether those differences are significant or somehow > incorrect. > > The font used was Amiri-Regular, and the text was "شكلي" (a sub-string > taken from an Arabic Lorem Ipsum generator <http://ar.lipsum.com/>). > > Thanks, > Jamie. > _______________________________________________ > HarfBuzz mailing list > HarfBuzz@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz >
_______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list HarfBuzz@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
