Ah, but what you don't realise [and it's not surprising, because MSDN doesn't make it clear] is that when ScriptTextOut calls ExtTextOut, it passes glyph indices, and uses the ETO_GLYPH_INDEX option.
Thus, the two statements are perfectly consistent. For once, Philippe's bold statement of fact is right. ;^) (BTW, the authority for my bold statement of fact above is a conversation with David Brown, the architect of Uniscribe) Cheers - rick cameron -----Original Message----- From: Andrew C. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 11 July 2003 8:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:15:14 +0200, "Philippe Verdy" wrote: > The Win32 Text APIs (such as TextOut) actually DO support UniScribe > transparently on Windows XP... In most applications, this means that > the UniScribe support works without requiring explicit calls to the > Uniscribe API. Surely some mistake here. <quote src="MSDN"> Starting with Microsoft Windows 2000, these functions [TextOut, ExtTextOut, TabbedTextOut, DrawText, and GetTextExtentExPoint] have been extended to support complex scripts. In general, this support is transparent to the application. </quote> <quote src="MSDN"> The [Uniscribe] ScriptTextOut function takes the output of both ScriptShape and ScriptPlace calls and calls the operating system ExtTextOut function appropriately. </quote> Now if Uniscribe's ScriptTextOut function calls ExtTextOut, and according to Philippe ExtTextOut utilises Uniscribe to output text ... No, I don't think so. There is a big difference between "support complex scripts" (MSDN) and "support UniScribe" (Philippe). I don't know what the exact implementation of complex script support is for ExtTextOut etc., but I'm pretty sure that it is independant of Uniscribe. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I'm not going to dress up a wild guess as a statement of certain fact as Philippe so likes to do (and it is disingenuous of him to pretend that we are all picking on him because his English is not good enough - there's nothing ambiguous about his misleading statements, and if he wants to repeat them in French they'll still be misleading or just plain wrong). Andrew
