This only applies to the marks that result of multiple substitution i.e. in Amiri the middle lam of لله is substituted with <lam><shadda><smallalef>, I don’t think Arabic Typesetting has something like that.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:58:08PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > This also happens with Arabic Typesetting I assume? > > b > > On 06/12/2012 06:31 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > I’m not sure if this is related, but I now get no mkmk positioning when > > the marks are “inserted” using multiple substitution. For example, “للّٰه” > > is positioned correctly, while “لله” is not though it is the same mark > > glyphs except they are being added by multiple substation. > > > > [uni0647.fina_Lellah=4+721|uni0670=1@-267,-162|uni0651=1@-277,-440|uni0644.medi_Lellah=1+473|uni0644.init_Lellah=0+319] > > > > vs.: > > > > [uni0647.fina_Lellah=2+721|uni0670=1@-245,-440|uni0651=1@-277,-440|uni0644.medi_Lellah=1+473|uni0644.init_Lellah=0+319] > > > > Regards, > > Khaled > > > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:14:19PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > >> Hi Khaled and others, > >> > >> I fixed this, among other things, including a major mlig and mkmk > >> regression. > >> Please test. > >> > >> behdad > >> > >> On 05/12/2012 08:54 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> There seems to be a difference between HarfBuzz and Uniscribe on how to > >>> handle mark positioning when there is multiple glyph substitution, > >>> namely HB seems to apply the mark to the last component while USP > >>> applies it to the first component. > >>> > >>> In other words, if there is <base> → <base₁><base₂> substitution, the > >>> sequence <base><mark> will be rendered as if it was <base₁><base₂><mark> > >>> with HB, but as <base₁><mark><base₂> with USP. > >>> > >>> Using hb-shape with “uniscribe” shaper, and the word “سَتا” and Arabic > >>> Typesetting font, I get > >>> > >>> > >>> [uniFE8E=3+343|uniFE98=2+376|uni064E=0@501,-260|uni0640.curvehalf=0@,34+152|uniFEB3=0@,34+840] > >>> ^^^^^^^^ > >>> but with “ot” shaper, I get: > >>> > >>> > >>> [uniFE8E=3+343|uniFE98=2+376|uni064E=0@-11,-310|uni0640.curvehalf=0@,34+152|uniFEB3=0@,34+840] > >>> ^^^^^^^^ > >>> though the glyph string is the same, the position of the mark is clearly > >>> different. > >>> > >>> (background: I need this to contextually insert tatweel to avoid mark > >>> collision in “crowded” places, but with the difference between both > >>> engines this can’t be reliably done without breaking mark positioning in > >>> one of them). > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Khaled > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> HarfBuzz mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz > > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
