From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 10:06:16 EDT
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:09:08 -0700, Rick Cameron wrote:
> Ah, but what you don't realise [and it's not surprising, because MSDN
> doesn't make it clear] is that when ScriptTextOut calls ExtTextOut, it
> passes glyph indices, and uses the ETO_GLYPH_INDEX option.
> Thus, the two statements are perfectly consistent. For once, Philippe's
> bold statement of fact is right. ;^)
> (BTW, the authority for my bold statement of fact above is a conversation
> with David Brown, the architect of Uniscribe)
Well, I had a sneaking suspicion that someone would prove me wrong on this one.
But having said that, I'm not entirely convinced. You seem to be saying that
ExtTextOut facilitates ScriptTextOut's use of it under Windows 2K and XP by
means of the ETO_GLYPH_INDEX option (surely the same would apply under NT4, 9X
and ME ?), but this is not the same as Philippe's assertion that under XP you
can call simply TextOut with a Unicode string and TextOut will utilise the
appropriate Uniscribe functions to render the text the same as if you had used
the Uniscribe API directly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 10:56:29 EDT