[HarfBuzz] what not to indic shape

[Martin Hosken]

Dear Behdad,

> This helps a lot.  So how we can document that those are Simple, and make sure
> about the ones you were not sure about?

The questionable ones are rare scripts and I would take the risk of treating them as simple given there is no reordering involved. We can always move them with a bug report. One key aspect is that there is no reordering involved, and that's a key issue.

Yours,
Martin

> 
> behdad
> 
> On 09/08/11 00:36, Martin Hosken wrote:
> > Dear Behdad,
> > 
> > Here is a list of scripts that I think shouldn't be using the indic shaper. Justification of simple means that there is no reordering or conjuncts involved and that there is probably no actual shaping (so just generic shaping will be sufficient).
> > 
> > BATAK:		? Simple
> > BRAHMI:		? Simple
> > HANUNOO:	? Simple
> > KAYAH_LI:	Simple
> > LAO:		See Thai
> > LIMBU:		Simple
> > MEETEI_MAYEK:	? Simple
> > MYANMAR:	Current implementations do not have complex shaping. The current indic shaper is inappropriate. This is a temporary measure. Ideally the font should be queried for a key feature like blwf. If missing, then use generic shaping else use either fixed indic or myanmar specific.
> > PHAGS_PA:	Simple
> > SAURASHTRA:	? Simple
> > SYLOTI_NAGRI:	Simple
> > TAGALOG:	Simple
> > TAGBANWA:	Simple
> > TAI_LE:		Simple
> > TAI_VIET:	See Thai
> > THAI:		No reordering, no conjuncts, some ligation, generic shaping sufficient. Note that for the Thai class of scripts reordering prevowels would be wrong.
> > TIBETAN:	Subjoined characters have their own codes.
> > 
> > HTH,
> > Martin
> > _______________________________________________
> > HarfBuzz mailing list
> > HarfBuzz at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
> >