Hello Kent,
I was also very much thinking that mirrored glyph should be of the same
width, but there might be subtle issues when you consider kerning. As a
very basic example, think about kerning of the pair K), and then think
about K(.
Regards, Martin.
On 2011/10/11 19:39, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Den 2011-10-11 09:43, skrev "Eli Zaretskii"<e...@gnu.org>:
Let me give you just one example: if the character should be mirrored,
you cannot decide whether it fits the display line until _after_ you
know what its mirrored glyph looks like. But mirroring is only
resolved at a very late stage of reordering, so if you want to reorder
_after_ breaking into display lines, you will have to back up and
reconsider that decision after reordering, which will slow you down.
Well, I think there is a silent (but reasonable, I would say) assumption
that mirroring does not change the width of a glyph... I would think that if
a font does not fulfill that, then you have a font problem (or mix of fonts
problem), not a bidi problem. Glyphs for characters that may mirror do not
normally form ligatures with other glyphs; and even if they do, the width of
the ligature should not change relative to the total with of the preligature
glyphs involving glyphs for mirrorable characters (and if it does change
anyway, you again have a font problem that may result in a somewhat ugly
display that should be fixed by fixing the font, not a bidi problem). I'm
not thinking about Emacs here, but in general.
IMHO
/Kent K
