Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461617
--- Comment #14 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-09-29 22:23:02 EDT --- Thanks for analysing. here is more details in TTF spec:
GDEF Header 0000: 00 01 00 00 : Version of GDEF table 0004: 00 0c : offset to GlyphClassDef table 0006: 00 00 : offset to AttachList table 0008: 00 16 : offset to LigCaretList table 000A: 00 00 : offset to Mark Attachment Class Definition table
GlyphClassDef table 000C: 00 02 : ClassFormat 000E: 00 01 : ClassRangeCount : ClassRangeRecord[0] 0010: 00 03 : Start 0012: 35 0f : End 0014: 00 01 : Class, 1 = base glyphs
LigCaretList table 0016: 00 04 : offset to Coverage table 0018: 00 00 : LigGlyphCount
Coverage table 001A: 00 02 : CoverageFormat 001C: 00 00 : GlyphCount
In either case, there are actually no glyph definitions in the coverage table. I'm really wondering why it affects to this. Is it freetype or HarfBuzz bug?