Re: [Devel] OpenType futures

[Werner LEMBERG]

> There doesn't seem to me to be any reason why validation is
> inherently easier to do inside FreeType.  To do table parsing inside
> FreeType takes a stream.  To do table parsing outside of FreeType
> takes a buffer.  To do validation inside FreeType takes a stream.
> To do validation outside FreeType takes a buffer and a length.

As mentioned earlier, I see no problem to move the validation code out
of FreeType 2.  I'm just stating my feelings, which are probably
wrong.  Right now I'm in the process of making src/otlayout work; I'll
mark all places where direct access to the rest of FreeType is
necessary -- the current code is *completely* independent from
FreeType, but some checks are still missing.  Let's see how far I come
without serious problems.

> To me, it's a lot easier, if we want both a new API / code
> organization and a new internal structure that avoids an initial
> full parse, to do the first first, then do the second.

Again, I don't object.

>  - We figure out an API that is going to work for Pango, for Qt, and
>    for separate validation.
>  - We implement that in otlayout/ using the currently working code.
>  - Bug fixes and improvements that are being done for Pango or Qt
>    can land immediately in that code base.
>  - In parallel, a rewrite to separate validation can be done using
>    the same application API, and when its reasonably complete, it
>    should be very easy to drop into place.

This is OK with me.


    Werner