Commit Graph

7 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Behdad Esfahbod fc0daafab0 [indic] Handle old-spec Malayalam reordering with final Halant
See comment.

Micro-tests added.
2014-07-23 16:53:03 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod 00a57eb4b5 [test] Remove unused micro-font 2014-07-18 14:42:50 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod ed29b15f5d [test] Add more Mongolian variation selector tests
From
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=393896
2014-07-18 14:37:49 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod 615d00ea25 [arabic] Apply init/medi/isol/fini/... in separate stages
Follows the order of the Arabic/Syriac specs.  Also don't stop
between rlig and calt in non-Arabic scripts.

Micro-tests for Arabic and Mongolian added for the latter.
2014-07-17 15:50:13 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod 164c13d73f Another try to fix Mongolian free variation selectors
This reverts bf029281 and fixes it properly.  That commit
was not enough as it was only inheriting the shaping_action
for prev_action, but not curr_action.

Micro-test added.

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=393896
2014-07-17 14:28:04 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod 3b861421a7 Fix Mongolian Variation Selectors for fonts without GDEF
Originally we fixed those in 79d1007a50.
However, fonts like MongolianWhite don't have GDEF, but have IgnoreMarks
in their LigatureSubstitute init/etc features.  We were synthesizing a
GDEF class of mark for Mongolian Variation Selectors and as such the
ligature lookups where not matching.  Uniscribe doesn't do that.

I tried with more sophisticated fixes, like, if there is no GDEF and
a lookup-flag mismatch happens, instead of rejecting a match, try
skipping that glyph.  That surely produces some interesting behavior,
but since we don't want to support fonts missing GDEF more than we have
to, I went for this simpler fix which is to always mark
default-ignorables as base when synthesizing GDEF.

Micro-test added.

Fixes rest of https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65258
2014-07-16 13:30:26 -04:00
Behdad Esfahbod 1d634cbb4b Fix base-position when 'pref' is NOT formed
If pre-base reordering Ra is NOT formed (or formed and then
broken up), we should consider that Ra as base.  This is
observable when there's a left matra or dotreph that positions
before base.

Now, it might be that we shouldn't do this if the Ra happend
to form a below form.  We can't quite deduce that right now...

Micro test added.  Also at:

https://code.google.com/a/google.com/p/noto-alpha/issues/detail?id=186#c29
2014-06-12 17:10:35 -04:00