Open
Conversation
|
It works 👌 Thanks again for your help |
Owner
Author
|
I don't think this will impact rendering with fontkit, though this project doesn't use that fontkit feature. You might be able to explore using the browser to natively render the glyphs. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-feature-settings Example usage here: Line 32 in 35d5fbe |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@andreinitescu
Instead of relying on browserify and transform-loader, I've added a manual fs shim.
This is technically less correct since we are losing the file contents. For example, here's a diff of
node_modules/fontkit/index.js:6878(after running through webpack):Before:
After:
So the runtime behavior is changing, but it practically doesn't impact any of the ligature APIs. This change only applies to the docs site, and not the
ligaturesnpm library.