On 5/3/20, 4:11 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 4/30/20 9:31 am, Philip Race wrote:
This test is called MaxAdvance *is max*. My emphasis.
So there is no way to check that MaxAdvance *is max* for some
predictable values? even for simple char like "W" or "A"?
"Check" or "ensure" ?
To check you compare.
To ensure you would have to do as you said in a previous reply by
forcing max advance to
as great as those arbitrary characters and I already gave my reasons why
I think that is not appropriate.
It is very hard to defend why certain code points are special and you
would adjust the spec. again(!) to
say that. And it would be to no advantage and perhaps break applications
that did not expect it to change.
-phil.
Not "all values returned by getWidths() are less than or equal to max
advance.
The latter is simply the inadequate implementation to partially test
the assertion
and which was already proving to be too much. The only way to make
that test
pass is to make changes to what max advance reports and I am saying that
we should not do that. It would be artificial and wrong.
-phil.
On 4/30/20, 9:23 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 4/29/20 3:58 pm, Philip Race wrote:
the advance of 'm' is a commonly used proxy for the design width of
a latin font.
But I agree it is also not really a great estimate once you
consider any international text.
Anyway I am not sure where you are headed with that and the
discussion of charWidth() or charWidths().
I am not trying to "fix the world" here, I am just removing a test
that it is pointless to maintain.
Then probably we can report a bug, to state that we have some issues
here?
From my point of view, the test is mostly fine, it does not check some
real corner cases and compound glyphs but only the simple chars,
which should
work. If it does not work means all code where we try to predict the
size of
the text components is broken, and it looks like there is no way to
fix that.
