Le 30/10/2011 17:20, Petr Tomasek a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Paul Isambert wrote:
Le 30/10/2011 13:20, George N. White III a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Khaled Hosny<khaledho...@eglug.org>
wrote:
Writing an OpenType layout engine is not a simple task, and you can
judge from the many years it toke FOSS community to have a really good
one, HarfBuzz (the name luaotfload is misleading, font loading is about
the easiest part of luaotfload, OpenType implementation is really what
matters.) If it were for me, I'd plug HarfBuzz into luatex proper and
call it a day, but this does not align well with the "design" principles
of luatex so it is unlikely to happen.
If plugging harfbuzz into luatex does not require a huge effort, it could
serve as bridge from xetex to luatex while a more principled design
is being created. Principles are nice, and have benefits over the long
haul, but in cases where the design is evolving it really helps to get
an implementation into the hands of users and let them point out the
areas where work is needed.
As far as I can see, the principles behind LuaTeX are pretty clear; it
offers tools, not solutions. Sometimes that makes it apparently slow-witted,
like TeX itself, because it refuses to implement solutions that seem
successful elsewhere. But one shouldn't forget that (Lua)TeX is an
extremely sophisticated typographic system, and that flexibility is an
integral part of it. Using HarfBuzz would probably offer a simple solution,
but you'd lose what makes LuaTeX so worthwhile.
Best,
Paul
What is so "worthwile" on cripling one scripting language with
another one?
I don't understand your (I suppose) rhetorical question. Do you mean
crippling TeX with Lua? If that's how you see LuaTeX, I think there
isn't much we're going to agree on.
Best,
Paul
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
