From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: how reliable is rendering of complex scripts? Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:57:19 +0300 Message-ID: <83lhbj0xds.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zizz1590.fsf@gnu.org> <20151004.100903.10931451.wl@gnu.org> <83pp0v0zh8.fsf@gnu.org> <20151004.114017.420424381.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443952673 15245 80.91.229.3 (4 Oct 2015 09:57:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:57:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: handa@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 04 11:57:42 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zig33-0001Bl-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:57:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41831 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zig32-0001R1-Lg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:57:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35391) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zig2p-0001Qt-1S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zig2l-0005kO-RV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:57:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:43402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zig2l-0005kI-JS; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NVO00500WQUMN00@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:54:41 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NVO003LMWV4JF20@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:54:41 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <20151004.114017.420424381.wl@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190864 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:40:17 +0200 (CEST) > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@gnu.org > From: Werner LEMBERG > > > Perhaps a good first step would be for someone to produce pictures > > of the rendered texts from those tests (using Harfbuzz or anything > > else that can be used as reference), and then we could compare that > > with what Emacs produces for the same texts, and see how good or bad > > we are doing. > > This is *exactly* what should be avoided IMHO. It's both far too much > work and too imprecise. Not if it's the only practical alternative (besides doing nothing).