-
For the purposes of this thesis I coded the citation style and numbering using Typst's introspection system and handwrote the references. However, we have also written a BibLaTeX-compatible citation system called hayagriva [1] for Typst. We haven't yet integrated it, but want to do so before our public beta.
[1]: https://github.com/typst/hayagriva
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
HTML the markup language was clearly intended as an SGML vocabulary - TBL himself said as much [1] and HTML also reused element names from the SGML spec/handbook as example/folklore vocabulary such as for paragraphs and headings.
What browsers made out of it isn't the matter here, but even if it were, the "practical, real-world HTML out there" argument is mostly used to pull up the ladder by an ad company/browser cartel made worse day-in day-out through an atrocious and absurdly voluminous HTML spec (and by CSS, of course).
Even though Ian Hickson, of WHATWG, wanted to capture HTML as it was understood by browsers, he couldn't help but added additional elements of his own - such as for marking up ads as "aside" lol plus the alien sectioning elements concepts that gave rise to the flawed "outline algorithm" and misuse of heading elements (and earlier failure to understand SGML's RANK feature), a problem that was only fixed last year [2].
In practice, very few changes to the HTML syntax brought HTML outside SGML - for the most part, ad-hoc and basically unnecessary commenting rules for the script and styles element to keep legacy browsers from rendering JavaScript and CSS, resp., when those where introduced.
[1]: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/MarkUp.html
[2]: https://github.com/w3c/htmlwg/issues/22
-
-
-
-
The linked libraries are not even close to solving limited subsets of problems solved by FreeType or HarfBuzz. No test is needed if they do not even have a working implementation of particular requisites: Do they work on heterogeneous layouts, directions, languages, locales, scripts, symbols and composites, extensions, variations, legacy, missing, partial or corrupted instructions, standards interpretations, platforms, output devices, nonstandard point structures and grids?
They do not. What they solve is almost a toy problem compared to the size, scope and breadth of these libraries.
Just because some project is implemented in Rust does not make it comparable never mind superior by default.
There is a world out there and it is not homogeneous format and standards-compliant Latin fonts in English LTR text in linear disposition with some generic rectangular subpixel rendering on a regular rectangular grid.
I warmly welcome you to browse closed issues of FreeType [1] and also the closed issues of HarfBuzz [2]. If you feel inspired please do also look into mailing lists and discussion pages related to the development, building, tracking and patching of packages of these projects in any of the numerous places it is used.
The only argument Rust people have is in relation WASM but if you insist in targeting WASM why not fork FreeType, strip it to the strict subset of features your application needs and target it?
Why do it in the first place? Why reinvent the wheel?
As such I will restate my view: I see no gain in using any of these subpar libraries.
[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/freetype/freetype/-/issues/?s...
[2] https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/issues?q=is%3Aclosed
-
