Thanks Behdad.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:39:29PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Fixed. > > On 07/25/2012 05:13 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > 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
