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 12:12:03 +0300 Message-ID: <83pp0v0zh8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83pp0x7mnq.fsf@gnu.org> <20151004.063952.389316157.wl@gnu.org> <83zizz1590.fsf@gnu.org> <20151004.100903.10931451.wl@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443949944 10111 80.91.229.3 (4 Oct 2015 09:12:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:12:24 +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 11:12:16 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 1ZifL5-0000yP-DN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:12:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41737 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZifL4-0000Y6-Su for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57967) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZifL1-0000Xr-Oh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:12:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZifKy-0003Zd-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:55537) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZifKy-0003ZQ-BA; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 05:12:08 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NVO00500UK6AU00@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:05:03 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NVO00JFTUKF4OA0@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:05:03 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <20151004.100903.10931451.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: 80.179.55.180 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:190860 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 10:09:03 +0200 (CEST) > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@gnu.org > From: Werner LEMBERG >=20 > >> https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/tree/master/test/shaping > >> https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/tree/master/util > >=20 > > I will see if we can extract something from there to see how Emac= s > > displays those scripts. >=20 > The nice thing about `hb-shape' is that it doesn't output graphics = but > a textual representation of the GSUB and GPOS manipulation results > (including reordering of the input). In other words, Emacs could u= se > the same output format in a special test mode, making comparisons v= ery > simple =E2=80=93 and automated! Too bad. It means these tests cannot be easily used by Emacs, becaus= e (1) the shaping engine is not part of Emacs, and (2) to have somethin= g even approximately close, Someone=E2=84=A2 will have to add code to composite.c, composite.el, etc. to produce such a textual description= , and for that, that Someone=E2=84=A2 will have to study and understand= the code there enough to write the additions. Unless Handa-san will find time to do the main parts of this, of course. 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 ar= e doing. Thanks.