Talk:DirectWrite

Myanmar

What about Myanmar? Will it include as default in Windows 7 release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.166.2 (talk • contribs)

Myanmar is a supported script in DirectWrite and will have a font included in Windows 7 and Windows Vista "Platform Update", as indicated in the Supported Scrips section.

As for whether Windows 7 is available in Myanmar localization, the answer is no. See this Engineering Windows 7 blog post. Myanmar locale settings may be available in Regional and Languages Options though. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Direct2D

What is the relationship between DirectWrite and Direct2D? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@Tom: The relationship is fairly intimate, as Direct2D directly depends on DirectWrite for all glyph rasterization and coordinate placement. However, DirectWrite does not actually render anything itself when D2D's DrawGlyphRun is called - that is all Direct2D using the GPU (or WARP). The opening paragraph saying that "DirectWrite is hardware-accelerated" is a bit misleading in that regard, as it sounds like DirectWrite actually uses the GPU itself. With the exception of the GDI interop IDWriteBitmapRenderTarget, DWrite is only an OpenType (TrueType/CFF) glyph bitmap rasterizer. Piken (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of KB articles

Please do not add lists of Microsoft Knowledge Base articles. Wikipedia is not a guide for security updates and bug fixes which are rountinely released every week. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 20:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC: KB articles

Should DirectWrite entry contain a detailed list of Microsoft Knowledge Base articles relating to security updates and bug-fixes? --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a usage manual. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per WP:NOTHOWTO.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't feel strongly about a certain amount of how-to listing and guidance; If a user accidentally picks up a bit of vital knowledge from WP when he is stuck, it seems just possible that the other pillars of WP might take up the strain. But really guys, how encyclopaedic is it to document the use of anything as volatile as commercial software, where the relevant material is on the web anyway, FREE yet, and maintaining it is a full time job for a team? I reckon that an article such as this one justifies barely a lede. JonRichfield (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Example edits by anonymous users: [1] [2] [3]) --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected!!

Jesus Christ, I'm glad this article is protected. There's nothing so controversial as an API!

And good to see the deletionists are still with us. "We shouldn't put information in here, because it might eventually become out of date".

Oh and I notice there's a new way to say "citation needed"! Let's make it more obvious, why the pale pink? Why not bright magenta? And a citation to say that it replaces something else - highly important. You can never trust whether someone is misleading you. 118.90.50.22 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive Unicode support??

I challenge this assertion and request an authoritative citation (one INDEPENDENT of Microsoft, since they've been claiming Unicode support for years, even when their "support" was virtually non-existent)."Comprehensive" suggests "full" and according to the Unicode (or was it the ISO?) consortium, NO platform or software/hardware system fully supports Unicode 9.0. (The fact that I'm not sure "full support" is even possible is another issue). Using Word16 on a Windows 10 (home 64bit) system I am able to create far more glyphs than I could previously, but there remain a large number that do not render. Hence, it seems obvious that either Word, the OS, or DirectWrite is responsible for less than comprehensive "support". I am able to create chars which render INCORRECTLY, hence I conclude DirectWrite does NOT fully support Unicode 9.0. Clearly, claiming DirectWrite (with no version specified) "comprehensively supports Unicode (with no version specified)" is just hot air.173.191.243.18 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

DirectWrite supports Unicode 6.0 since Windows 8 - see What's new in DirectWrite. I believe Windows 10 does not change this, though it adds a few new scripts and the ability to automatically download missing fonts from the online database. [4]

Uniscribe on the other hand has undergone a major refactoring - what they call the "Universal Shaping Engine" - to support Unicode 7.0 and 8.0 complex scripts [5][6] [7]. It is reasonable to expect that this engine will be expanded to handle existing scripts and may even yield improvements to other script engines like DirectWrite. However it would take some time for font developers and OS programmers to catch up with the new specification.

BTW comparing to pre-Vista support for Unicode, Windows 7 and 8/8.1 support is quite comprehensive; NT 6 (Vista) was a huge improvement with fully orthogonal support for national languages and scripts, as well as system MUI language packs - this required quite a lot of engineering effort [8] (see also Michael Kaplan blog archive [9]). --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 12:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DirectWrite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408062133/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/archive/2009/09/10/windows-7-transition-pack-for-windows-vista.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/directx/archive/2009/09/10/windows-7-transition-pack-for-windows-vista.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810103409/https://blog.mozilla.org/nattokirai/2011/08/11/directwrite-text-rendering-in-firefox-6/ to https://blog.mozilla.org/nattokirai/2011/08/11/directwrite-text-rendering-in-firefox-6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)