Note, the function now returns "half of horizontal advance width"
if top accent attachment for glyph is not explicitly defined.
This is what the spec requires. Updated tests.
The so-called Python 2 “narrow” builds support UCS2 only, this is a
workaround to allow unichr to work with any Unicode character in such
builds. This fixes Travis-CI failure as it has narrow Python 2 builds.
Copied from:
https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/blob/master/Lib/fontTools/misc/py23.py
Fixes https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/243
With javatext.ttf, the reodering medial Ra gets its advance width
zero'ed in Uniscribe implementation, and the font adds the advance
back. Our Indic shaper does not do that, but USE does. So, route
Javanese through USE. That's what Microsoft does anyway. Test:
U+A9A5,U+A9BA
This also seems to fix the following sequence, and variations thereof:
U+A99F,U+A9C0,U+A9A2,U+A9BF
Apparently some clients have reference-table callbacks that copy the table.
As such, avoid loading 'glyf' table which is only needed if fallback positioning
happens.
That commit moved the advance adjustment for mark positioning to
be applied immediately, instead of doing late before. This breaks
if mark advances are zeroed late, like in Arabic. Also, easier to
hit it in RTL scripts since a single mark with non-zero advance is
enough to hit the bug, whereas in LTR, at least two marks are needed.
This reopens https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/211
The cursive+mark interaction is broken again. To be fixed in a
different way.
This better emulates Unicode grapheme clusters.
Note that Uniscribe does NOT do this, but should be harmless with most clients,
and improve fallback with clients that use HarfBuzz cluster as unit of fallback.
Fixes https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/217
This is what Microsoft's implementation does. Marks that need advance
need to add it back using 'dist' or other feature in GPOS. Update tests to
match.
Fixes https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/211
What happens in that bug is that a mark is attached to base first,
then a second mark is cursive-chained to the first mark. This only
"works" because it's in the Indic shaper where mark advances are
not zeroed.
Before, we didn't allow cursive to run on marks at all. Fix that.
We also where updating mark major offsets at the end of GPOS, such
that changes in advance of base will not change the mark attachment
position. That was superior to the alternative (which is what Uniscribe
does BTW), but made it hard to apply cursive to the mark after it
was positioned. We could track major-direction offset changes and
apply that to cursive in the post process, but that's a much trickier
thing to do than the fix here, which is to immediately apply the
major-direction advance-width offsets... Ie.:
https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/211#issuecomment-183194739
If this breaks any fonts, the font should be fixed to do mark attachment
after all the advances are set up first (kerning, etc).
Finally, this, still doesn't make us match Uniscribe, for I explained
in that bug. Looks like Uniscribe applies minor-direction cursive
adjustment immediate as well. We don't, and we like it our way, at
least for now. Eg. the sequence in the test case does this:
- The first subscript attaches with mark-to-base, moving in x only,
- The second subscript attaches with cursive attachment to first subscript
moving in x only,
- A final context rule moves the first subscript up by 104 units.
The way we do, the final shift-up, also shifts up the second subscript
mark because it's cursively-attached. Uniscribe doesn't. We get:
[ttaorya=0+1307|casubscriptorya=0@-242,104+-231|casubscriptnarroworya=0@20,104+507]
while Uniscribe gets:
[ttaorya=0+1307|casubscriptorya=0@-242,104+-211|casubscriptnarroworya=0+487]
note the different y-offset of the last glyph. In our view, after cursive,
things move together, period.
