Re: Request for pango freeze break



On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 10:51, Murray Cumming wrote:
> Standard questions:
> 
> 1. Is this a regression, compare to GNOME 2.6?

No. (It was a GNOME-2.4 => GNOME-2.6 regression.)

> 2. How much has this been tested, to watch out for general horrible
> brokenness elsewhere?

Not a lot, though I'm unable to imagine general horrible brokenness 
from this. The change basically just means that U+3000 goes down the
same code path as the 60,000 ideographic characters. 

non-CJK users won't be affected at all, because they won't have
U+3000 in their texts. I'd be pretty darn surprised if CJK users 
were affected adversely.

Regards,
					Owen

(I suppose a determined programmer could write code that would 
be broken by the change ... e.g., if they somehow were assuming 
that the sequence U+0020 U+3000 would always be shaped
into a single run with a single font. But they'd have to be
*really* trying.)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]