<div class="gmail_quote">On 14 June 2011 22:52, Ed Trager <<a href="mailto:ed.trager@gmail.com">ed.trager@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div><div></div><div class="h5">On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM, <a href="mailto:pravin.d.s@gmail.com">pravin.d.s@gmail.com</a> <<a href="mailto:pravin.d.s@gmail.com">pravin.d.s@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > > On 14 June 2011 08:11, Kenichi Handa <<a href="mailto:handa@m17n.org">handa@m17n.org</a>> wrote: >> >> In article <<a href="mailto:4DF6C38F.30403@gmail.com">4DF6C38F.30403@gmail.com</a>>, Shriramana Sharma >> <<a href="mailto:samjnaa@gmail.com">samjnaa@gmail.com</a>> writes: >> >> > On 14-06-2011 00:18, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> > > I know that problem very well, and am working on a solution to address >> > > it. >> > > Having more shapers doesn't really solve it though. >> >> > Yeah, I was meaning to say this: Each Indic script has its own unique >> > characteristics and so even the classification of North Indic vs South >> > Indic wouldn't work. >> >> FYI, m17n-lib's approach is to have a layouting engine for >> each script. In the case of m17n-lib, having many layouting >> engines has no problem. Each engine is just 100 to 300 >> lines of text file containing layouting rules. We adopted >> this approach because we found that a slight difference of >> layouting rules results in rather complicated code when they >> are mixed in a signle engine. > > Yeah, pango and even old harfbuzz code was problematic from fixing point of > view due to this problem and behdad as a upstream developer know this very > well :) > > since this time we are starting from scratch, it will be better to make > individual engine and make them perfect. In this way we will know exceptions > of each language/script better. And then we will be in better position to > merge them back. > > Advantage of having single engine for each script for now is we can > concurrently work on most of the language. > </div></div>When I do various software projects, I always like to think in terms of "phase one", "phase two" and "phase three" -- and I like to "sell" projects to stakeholders in these terms. So, based on what I am hearing here, perhaps we can summarize the proposed development process as follows: </blockquote><div> Agree with phases you are suggested. !! - Pravin S </div></div>