[XeTeX] XeTeX 0.9999.2 released

[Khaled Hosny]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 07:31:48PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2013/4/13 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> 2013/4/13 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:32:47AM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> >> 2013/4/9 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>:
> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> >> >> >> 2013/4/9 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Zdenek,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > For all the failing tests I get the same output from Uniscribe as from
> >> >> >> > HarfBuzz and the new XeTeX, as such I believe those are font bugs. The
> >> >> >> > difference is probably because the font now contains version 2 Indic features
> >> >> >> > which HarfBuzz will always use (there is no way to tell HarfBuzz to use
> >> >> >> > the old features if the new ones are present).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Thanks for your effort. Steve White tried HTML version of these tests
> >> >> >> in Windows Vista and FreeFont worked there (he sent me the
> >> >> >> screenshot). Anyway, your build fails even with FreeFont 20120503
> >> >> >> (distributed with TL2012) and if I remember well, it does not have
> >> >> >> version 2 features (but maybe my memory is wrong).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I need his test files then.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I do not have his exact files but the attached file contains his
> >> >> screenshot. I have typed the text in HTML, you just have to add a CSS
> >> >> defining the font to be used.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure I follow, but the output in your screenshot is the exact
> >> > same output I get with XeTeX, what is the issue then?
> >> >
> >> It worked fine in TL'12, the PDF's that failed are in directory
> >> http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/xetex-test/0.9999.2-r2525/ (ie XeTeX
> >> 0.9999.2 and FreeFont rev 2525), see vatu.pdf in that directory.
> >
> > There are two things to compare against here:
> >
> > * the pre-0.9999 output (i.e. our patched ICU LE).
> > * the Uniscribe output.
> >
> > Now given the situation of complex script support in OpenType, whatever
> > Uniscribe does *is* the standard and if other renderers deviate form
> > it, they are wrong (unless the deviation is deliberate, which is not the
> > case here with AFAIK).
> >
> > So, what I'm saying is that 0.9999 output (i.e. HarfBuzz) is the same as
> > Uniscribe, so it is right and the old output was wrong. You were
> > implying that Uniscribe on Windows 8 was giving different result from
> > 0.9999 but the screenshots you gave me show otherwise.
> >
> > So in short, unless Uniscribe is giving you *different* results than
> > XeTeX 0.9999, the new behaviour is correct and the old one is wrong.
> >
> Sorry but saying that fonts used to work only due to equivalent lucky
> bugs in both ICU and Pango and all firefox versions distributed with
> CentOS and Fedora within the last 8 years.

GNU FreeFont had Indic support for 8 years? Besides Firefox on Linux was
using Pango since version 3 until very recently, so we are talking about
just two engines, known to have Indic bugs.

> (including the current version 20.0)

We use essentially the same OpenType layout engine used by Firefox now,
and there should be any differences, if they are please provide specific
tests and clear instructions (please keep in mind that I’m completely
ignorant of Indic scripts and need hand holding here).

> Is there a possibility to obtain the output of my samples (preferably
> online) from Uniscribe if I send the text and the font? I would like
> to report just what is wrong, not to bother with tests that pass. I
> have only legal installation media of Windows 98 and Windows XP (but
> not installed anywhere because my old computers have crashed) and do
> not intend to buy newer versions of Windows. I plan to buy an iPad
> when I earn some money.

I don’t have the latest Windows myself, I can only test on Windows 7
occasionally.

Regards,
Khaled