Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 22, 2024. It is now read-only.

Missing glyph cases #118

Open
diegomura opened this issue May 14, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Missing glyph cases #118

diegomura opened this issue May 14, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@diegomura
Copy link
Contributor

diegomura commented May 14, 2018

Caused by 0x09 CHARACTER TABULATION

/2018/04/11/mark-wir-haetten-da-noch-ein-paar-fragen

screen shot 2018-05-16 at 2 18 04 pm

/2018/01/13/zuckerbergs-monster


Caused by 0x08 BACKSPACE

2018/03/15/mehr-geld-fuer-die-luftwaffe-weniger-fuer-die-armen-kantone

screen shot 2018-05-14 at 1 49 14 pm

@diegomura
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tpreusse not sure what todo with these chars for the moment.
Do you think we should do about these cases?

Technically they should fallback to the default font, but the AFM data has them as .notdef. However, they render as nothing is there. We can either change the fallbacj code to contemplate these control chars, or remote the chars directly from the articles

@tpreusse
Copy link
Contributor

I think control codes should not be rendered directly. Control codes that are also white space codes should probably be rendered according to meaning, text context and font metrics like font.unitsPerEm. But I don't know the details or the right spec to follow.

@diegomura
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree. The most quick workaround on not rendering control code is allowing them to fallback to the default font. They will do the job on assign a 0 width position and ignoring them in the doc. Will take some time today to work on this

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants