On 19/02/2016 01:06, Jonathan Kew wrote: > So... that was an interesting and thought-provoking suggestion, but at > this point I think I'm inclined towards keeping the existing model. To > me, it makes sense to think of these as increasing levels of support, > rather than as independent features.
That's interesting, because when we implemented these two things in SILE, we did it the other way around! Whole-run shaping came first, and then space kerning came second. There's a long and ponderous discussion of the implementation at https://github.com/simoncozens/sile/issues/179 - but basically we first sent the runs for shaping and then turned any spaces back into TeX-style constant width glue nodes, and then afterwards we decided to rely on the shaper's understanding of the space width. S -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
