On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:55:07 +0900 Shusaku KIMURA <[email protected]> wrote:
> So that means Uniscribe also has behaviors not described in the > specification, even though Uniscribe is implemented by Microsoft who > is the writer of the specification. Is it correct? Yes. And script-specific rendering is particularly bad for this. > Anyway, I get that there are no documents which is absolute and > trustworthy for the implementer. Are there any contacts to report such > unclearness or ambiguity of the specification? For the specifications at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/typography/, there is a feedback mechanism which keeps the feedback at https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/typography-issues/issues. The font format specification is now a free ISO standard, ISO/IEC 14496-22. ISO-related discussions may emerge on the OpenType list, for which the subscription information is, "[email protected]". Technically, the font format is just data which a rendering engine employs, which means that a font does not specify how text is rendered! This is trivially true of the detailed form of glyphs, where optional features such as ClearType and hinting can be significant. Richard. _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
