Dear Behdad, Some pertinent further information and that is that both diacritics were previously attached to the base before these rules are applied.
> Consider a font with the following FEA rule in it: > > pos u1014' 79 u1032 u1037; > > which adds 79 to the advance of the first glyph in the sequence u1014 u1032 > u1037: > > [u1014=0+609|u1032=0@-89,-42+0|u1037=0@-55,0+0] > > vs without the 1037: > > [u1014=0+530|u1032=0@-10,-42+0] > > But if we compare with a recent uniscribe we get: > > [u1014=0+609|u1032=1@-10,-42+0|u1037=2@24,0+0] > [u1014=0+530|u1032=1@-10,-42+0] > > and if we change the rule to compensate for the advance in the windows case > we get: > > pos u1014' 79 u1032' <-79 0 0 0> u1037; > > harfbuzz gives: > > [u1014=0+609|u1032=0@-168,-42+0|u1037=0@-55,0+0] > [u1014=0+530|u1032=0@-10,-42+0] > > uniscribe gives: > > [u1014=0+609|u1032=1@-89,-42+0|u1037=2@24,0+0] > [u1014=0+530|u1032=1@-10,-42+0] > > Yours, > Martin _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
