GNU bug report logs -
#33729
27.0.50; Partial glyphs not rendered for Gujarati with Harfbuzz enabled (renders fine using m17n)
Previous Next
Reported by: Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi <at> gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:22:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 27.0.50
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #98 received at 33729 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:59:48 +0200
> From: Khaled Hosny <dr.khaled.hosny <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, far.nasiri.m <at> gmail.com, behdad <at> behdad.org,
> 33729 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, kaushal.modi <at> gmail.com
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 09:38:43PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:49:45 +0200
> > > From: Khaled Hosny <dr.khaled.hosny <at> gmail.com>
> > > Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, far.nasiri.m <at> gmail.com, behdad <at> behdad.org,
> > > 33729 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, kaushal.modi <at> gmail.com
> > >
> > > Yes, the standard Unicode composition and decomposition. HarfBuzz uses
> > > these during shaping (it prefers composed form for a given sequence if
> > > supported by the font, and falls back to decomposed form otherwise).
> >
> > Btw, how is this problem solved in the other projects that use
> > Harfuzz? Does every project need to provide this functionality, or
> > does Harfuzz have it built-in, like with the script tags? If there's
> > built-in support for this, perhaps Emacs could just use that?
>
> There is built-in support, and currently we are using that. I can just
> remove the FIXME.
Are there any disadvantages in using the built-in support? I mean,
why did you envision an Emacs-specific implementation in the first
place?
Thanks.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 22 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.