> Not really... It's perfectly legitimate to use non-existing glyph > indices as interim number during GSUB...
Just curious: Have you actually tested this behaviour with existing engines? > When in doubt, do your own check. OK. > In this case, it's probably a font bug. But I don't think we want > to do anything about that. Of course it is a font bug. Note that round-trip conversion with the original ttx doesn't work with the previously sent Roboto-Thin font (ttx aborts with an error) – which is good IMHO, but I have no idea whether this is the correct action. However, your ttx version simply accepts `glyph65535' in the GSUB substitution. Do you *really* think this is OK? At least ttx should emit a warning that this glyph doesn't exist and is never input to another substitution. Werner _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
