- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:18:15 +0900
- To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWzs2SLHG4EW-Kh1MDyNY2n_aogJXEXhsnjDqH-yUj58w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@behdad.org> wrote: > >> When break-all a word of 10 chars at 3: >> 1. Shape the 3 with the rest as text-after. >> 2. Shape the 3 without text-after. >> 3. Shape the 10, find glyphs that map to the 3 chars and use them. >> >> I think you're talking about the diff between 1 and 2, correct? Is 3 >> still differ from 1? >> > > All three can be different. > > >> If 1 and 3 are the same, it helps our efficiency a bit. >> > > I've maintained text layout engines all my professional life, I fully > understand how it helps efficiency :). > > For that reason, I'm going to implement a piece of additional API in > HarfBuzz, called "safe-to-break", which can tell the client which points in > the text it is safe to break text and shape sides separately and still get > the same results. With that kind of API, you can break line, then walk > outwards from the break location, find the first safe-to-break point, and > reshape just the slice there, which for most simple cases will be empty. > > You can track the safe-to-break API progress here: > > https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/224 > Thank you!! Having that in HB is great, and I found we're on the same page by reading the initial sketch. It looks like I didn't write several implicit premise, but now my understanding matches. Sorry about my communication. Code is easier than English for me ;) /koji
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 04:19:04 UTC