Wait, so the idea is in the future, fonts will contain arbitrary full-color vector and bitmap images, they will contain Web Assembly code that needs to be run, and they will be streamed over the network? I’m probably missing a few other proposals, as I only skimmed.
Did anyone stop to consider if this is really necessary? The author makes it sound like he has used his influence steadily over the years to make fonts more complicated. “In year X, I proposed that fonts be able to do Y, because why not?” I get that text shaping is so complex, that in terms of open source, there is just Harfbuzz. I’m not an expert in this area. But I don’t think it’s a good thing if “font standards” are constantly getting new features, like web standards, and font renderers are like mini browser engines, where the sheer scope and number of features and rate of new features keeps everyone using the same codebases.
Well, we started this journey with bitmap fonts that wouldn't scale up, then most computers have been Western-oriented and didn't include full character sets for most of the people living on this planet. Then it turned out to be useful to be able to render languages and glyphs from dead ancient languages. And most languages other than English use all sorts of weird combining systems and accenting. When you type English it looks just like the keys you press. But type Arabic, especially with vowels, and it looks nothing like the keys you're hitting due to all the joining.
But the real kicker was emojis which threw a real spanner in the works. Prior to this text rendering had been universally mono, but we really had to add color then.
It's really about being inclusive. Writing (historically) was always something very analog, varying wildly between people, with all sorts of unbelievably arcane rules. Tech is just finally catching up with 5,000 years of history.
> Moreover, the fontations platform, which is the Rust framework Oxidize is producing, will unify font compilation and consumption, reducing the number of places new font-format features need to be implemented from three (FontTools, FreeType, and HarfBuzz) to one (Fontations), which would reduce development cost and overhead.
Will FreeType and HarfBuzz remain supported as C/C++ projects long-term, I wonder? Asking as someone who depends on these and doesn't want to introduce a dependency on a Rust compiler :)
Anecdotally, I notice a lot of game developers avoid FreeType and Harfbuzz entirely, instead opting for much worse text rendering in the form of stb_truetype.h only (Dear Imgui uses this, for example) - which 'is nice because it is a single header C file' but sucks with international languages; many people use SDFs for similar reasons.
I think the proposed move to WASM fonts, if done right, could make it easier to reduce the amount of code people need to render fonts (if the WASM font does the heavy lifting, and a small C program could render it) and alleviate this trend of people not using a good text rendering stack
I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see evidence that these Rust libraries have the kind of uptake that is alleged in the article. I think we'll be stuck with Freetype and HarfBuzz for a long time.
I have been hacking on a Rust program recently and I am using Freetype and Harfbuzz via FFI because the Rust packages he names don't appear to be mature yet.
That only helps you if all your targets are also actively supported by upstream. It also limits optimization opportunities, mainly removing parts of the library your code doesn't need.
> [It is ironic indeed, that a text about text rendering, is presented in such an inaccessible and badly-typed environment. This is a Google Docs Preview page. I am still yet to find a solution that provides the same features (collaboration, commenting, live edits) and is presented better. Suggestions are appreciated.]
Have you tried Observable? Their online notebook has live team editing built in, and the option to comment on cells, as well as fork and merge notebooks with suggested edits. However, it uses markdown instead of a WYSIWYG editor (although I did create some tagged template wrappers for djot and markdeep as possible alternatives). On the plus side it's really easy to write interactive demos!
They're kind of pivoting their product at the moment though, so I'm not sure how easy it is to get into the notebook part these days.
Before they tried to build a business with their notebooks alone, but they recently released Observable Framework[0], which is "a static site generator for data apps, dashboards, reports, and more" that you can install and run offline via npm[1]. IIUC the business plan is to make money by hosting the generated sites on their website, and offering tight integration with their existing notebook tech to continue to let people edit those cooperatively.
I really hope they succeed because I'm a big fan of both Observable notebooks and the new Observable Framework (and their Observable Plot library is pretty good too. Really, they have tons of good stuff).
But basically, they now have two products, as mentioned in the "overview" section of their docs[2].
This is a lovely write up, but oh boy... when I see:
> Finally, I proposed that the future of font shaping and drawing/ painting will involve a fully-programmable paradigm.
> Two tongue-in-cheek mis-uses of the HarfBuzz Wasm shaper appeared recently: the Bad Apple font, and llama.ttf. Check them out!
See... the thing about solving problems is that, eventually you realize that any kind of problem can be solved by simply making a platform that can execute arbitrary code.
...and you see it again and again.
Declarative compile definition in make? Why not just make it code and use cmake?
Declarative infra in terraform? Why not just make it code and use pulumi?
Declarative ui? Why not just make it code and use javascript?
Database that holds data? Why not just use stored procedures and do it in code?
The list just goes on and on, and every time you have to roll back to a few important questions:
- Is the domain so complicated you really need arbitrary code execution?
- Are you inventing a new programming language for it?
- How will people program and test for the target?
- How will you manage the security sandbox around it?
It's just such a persuasive idea; can't figure out how to deal with the complexity in configuration? Make it code and push the problem to the user instead!
Sometimes it makes sense. Sometimes it works out.
To be fair, I get it, yes, font layouts are harder than they look, and yes, using WASM as a target solves some of those issues, but I look at llama.ttf and I really have to pause and go...
...really? Does my font need to be able to implement a LLM?
I don't really think it does.
...and even if the problem is really so complex that rendering glyphs requires arbitrary code (I'm not convinced, but I can see the argument), I think you should be doing this in shaders, which already exist, already have a security sandbox and already have an ecosystem of tooling around it.
I think inventing a new programmable font thing is basically inventing a new less functional form of shaders, and it's a decision that everyone involved will come to regret...
I don't disagree. But I have kind of the opposite take.
I can't count how many times I've seen simple code get turned into a hideously complex declarative language that has serious gaps.
Simple UI library code? Turn it into a custom declarative syntax that is now limited!
Simple build system that works and is debuggable? Turn it into a declarative syntax that can't be debugged and can't handle all the edge cases!
And so on and so forth.
I will admit that the idea of a font programming language sounds genuinely awful to me. So I don't really disagree with your premise. But I'm increasingly annoyed with declarative system when vanilla code is often simpler, more flexible, and more powerful (by necessity). :)
It's still just doing exactly what shaders do, which is crazy.
Explain to me exactly why, other than 'I guess someone already implemented some kind of basic version of it' that you would have to have custom CPU code rendering glyphs instead of a shader rendering SDF's like literally everyone does with shaders already?
It's not a good solution. It's a bad, easy solution.
We have a solution for running arbitrary GPU accelerated graphics instructions; it has a cross platform version with webGPU.
This font thing... looks a lot like 'not invented here' syndrome to me, as an uninvolved spectator.
Why would you chose or want not to use GPU acceleration to render your glyphs?
What 'arbitrary code' does a font need to do that couldn't be implemented in a shader?
Maybe the horse has already bolted, yes, I understand programmable fonts already exist.. but geez, its incomprehensible to me, at least from what I can see.
You are missing the point. Finally, it'll be possible to exploit side-channel attacks without using Javascript in the browser. Static HTML+CSS+Fonts websites won't be safe anymore. Yippieee! Finally, there is no reason to allow disabling Javascript anymore.
And you could add backdoors to hacked fonts that are activated by magic spells. Isn't it great.
I really have to install an old system with the Infinality patches again, I remember them to be quite excellent, but that was a few years, monitors and contact lense upgrades ago…
Maybe I'll put RiscOS on a Raspberry Pi at the same time, which (IIRC) had one of the first antialiased font rendering engines ever.
(I do have some old Macs running currently, and weirdly enough still prefer some of the old "blurry" font renderings to a lot of modern ones, at least on regular displays)
RustyBuzz is quite limited when compared with HarfBuzz. The Rust fonts scene also seems to lack the necessary momentum to drive things through.
I’m not sure whether it’s because the Rust community is mostly interested in webtech or whether Rust itself makes it hard to solve such complex problems. But I don’t see the sands shifting in less than 10 years to come.
>RustyBuzz is quite limited when compared with HarfBuzz.
As the main author of rustybuzz I'm surprised to hear this. If you need a text shaper, rustybuzz is mostly a drop-in replacement for harfbuzz.
Text shaping and TrueType parsing are hard problems, but Rust does not make them more complicated. Quite the opposite. In fact, rustybuzz is written in 100% safe Rust.
I would even go further and say that Rust is the only sane option for solving text-related tasks.
I can't quite see why Rust would make it harder, it's always a breeze compared to working on C++ projects, especially as the project matures. The compiler catches a lot of issues early, which otherwise slow down C++ projects as they accumulate silently, because they should have fixed all warnings,
should have used ASan, TSan, MSan, religiously, and should have agreed on a manageable subset of C++, ... but of course didn't.
But I think the power of legacy and a bigger community is not to be underestimated.
Servo is tagged as dead but the revival seems to have somewhat worked. I guess nto nearly as many full time people than when it's was under Mozilla umbrella but not dead. And by the look of it neither is Pathfinder the rasteriser.
> An experimental engine Servo originally launched by Mozilla as a successor to Gecko, is implemented in Rust. It was eventually abandoned by Mozilla when Mozilla Corporation announced laying off a quarter of its staff in 2020 and transferred to The Linux Foundation, then in 2023 to TLF Europe. While still experimental, it has been under active development again since 2023. Servo currently uses Rust bindings to Harfbuzz.
I'd say Servo is going pretty well. The git is fairly active and monthly updates on their blog paint a positive picture of the rate of progress. I try the engine out roughly monthly after the blog posts drop and when I last did a few days ago I was impressed to see a lot of my most used websites being displayed correctly. At this rate, I think it could become viable much sooner than we think. However, the project is still critically underfunded, currently only getting a monthly $2229USD according to their website.
Readit News
Did anyone stop to consider if this is really necessary? The author makes it sound like he has used his influence steadily over the years to make fonts more complicated. “In year X, I proposed that fonts be able to do Y, because why not?” I get that text shaping is so complex, that in terms of open source, there is just Harfbuzz. I’m not an expert in this area. But I don’t think it’s a good thing if “font standards” are constantly getting new features, like web standards, and font renderers are like mini browser engines, where the sheer scope and number of features and rate of new features keeps everyone using the same codebases.
But the real kicker was emojis which threw a real spanner in the works. Prior to this text rendering had been universally mono, but we really had to add color then.
It's really about being inclusive. Writing (historically) was always something very analog, varying wildly between people, with all sorts of unbelievably arcane rules. Tech is just finally catching up with 5,000 years of history.
Will FreeType and HarfBuzz remain supported as C/C++ projects long-term, I wonder? Asking as someone who depends on these and doesn't want to introduce a dependency on a Rust compiler :)
Anecdotally, I notice a lot of game developers avoid FreeType and Harfbuzz entirely, instead opting for much worse text rendering in the form of stb_truetype.h only (Dear Imgui uses this, for example) - which 'is nice because it is a single header C file' but sucks with international languages; many people use SDFs for similar reasons.
I think the proposed move to WASM fonts, if done right, could make it easier to reduce the amount of code people need to render fonts (if the WASM font does the heavy lifting, and a small C program could render it) and alleviate this trend of people not using a good text rendering stack
I have been hacking on a Rust program recently and I am using Freetype and Harfbuzz via FFI because the Rust packages he names don't appear to be mature yet.
you can link against pre-built .dll/.so/.dylib from your C++ code base.
Interpreting OpenType is very complex.
Have you tried Observable? Their online notebook has live team editing built in, and the option to comment on cells, as well as fork and merge notebooks with suggested edits. However, it uses markdown instead of a WYSIWYG editor (although I did create some tagged template wrappers for djot and markdeep as possible alternatives). On the plus side it's really easy to write interactive demos!
They're kind of pivoting their product at the moment though, so I'm not sure how easy it is to get into the notebook part these days.
[0] https://observablehq.com/@jobleonard/djot
[1] https://observablehq.com/@jobleonard/wrapping-markdeep-into-...
I really hope they succeed because I'm a big fan of both Observable notebooks and the new Observable Framework (and their Observable Plot library is pretty good too. Really, they have tons of good stuff).
But basically, they now have two products, as mentioned in the "overview" section of their docs[2].
[0] https://observablehq.com/framework/
[1] https://github.com/observablehq/framework
[2] https://observablehq.com/documentation/learn/overview
> Finally, I proposed that the future of font shaping and drawing/ painting will involve a fully-programmable paradigm.
> Two tongue-in-cheek mis-uses of the HarfBuzz Wasm shaper appeared recently: the Bad Apple font, and llama.ttf. Check them out!
See... the thing about solving problems is that, eventually you realize that any kind of problem can be solved by simply making a platform that can execute arbitrary code.
...and you see it again and again.
Declarative compile definition in make? Why not just make it code and use cmake?
Declarative infra in terraform? Why not just make it code and use pulumi?
Declarative ui? Why not just make it code and use javascript?
Database that holds data? Why not just use stored procedures and do it in code?
The list just goes on and on, and every time you have to roll back to a few important questions:
- Is the domain so complicated you really need arbitrary code execution?
- Are you inventing a new programming language for it?
- How will people program and test for the target?
- How will you manage the security sandbox around it?
It's just such a persuasive idea; can't figure out how to deal with the complexity in configuration? Make it code and push the problem to the user instead!
Sometimes it makes sense. Sometimes it works out.
To be fair, I get it, yes, font layouts are harder than they look, and yes, using WASM as a target solves some of those issues, but I look at llama.ttf and I really have to pause and go...
...really? Does my font need to be able to implement a LLM?
I don't really think it does.
...and even if the problem is really so complex that rendering glyphs requires arbitrary code (I'm not convinced, but I can see the argument), I think you should be doing this in shaders, which already exist, already have a security sandbox and already have an ecosystem of tooling around it.
I think inventing a new programmable font thing is basically inventing a new less functional form of shaders, and it's a decision that everyone involved will come to regret...
I can't count how many times I've seen simple code get turned into a hideously complex declarative language that has serious gaps.
Simple UI library code? Turn it into a custom declarative syntax that is now limited!
Simple build system that works and is debuggable? Turn it into a declarative syntax that can't be debugged and can't handle all the edge cases!
And so on and so forth.
I will admit that the idea of a font programming language sounds genuinely awful to me. So I don't really disagree with your premise. But I'm increasingly annoyed with declarative system when vanilla code is often simpler, more flexible, and more powerful (by necessity). :)
Explain to me exactly why, other than 'I guess someone already implemented some kind of basic version of it' that you would have to have custom CPU code rendering glyphs instead of a shader rendering SDF's like literally everyone does with shaders already?
It's not a good solution. It's a bad, easy solution.
We have a solution for running arbitrary GPU accelerated graphics instructions; it has a cross platform version with webGPU.
This font thing... looks a lot like 'not invented here' syndrome to me, as an uninvolved spectator.
Why would you chose or want not to use GPU acceleration to render your glyphs?
What 'arbitrary code' does a font need to do that couldn't be implemented in a shader?
Maybe the horse has already bolted, yes, I understand programmable fonts already exist.. but geez, its incomprehensible to me, at least from what I can see.
And you could add backdoors to hacked fonts that are activated by magic spells. Isn't it great.
Maybe I'll put RiscOS on a Raspberry Pi at the same time, which (IIRC) had one of the first antialiased font rendering engines ever.
(I do have some old Macs running currently, and weirdly enough still prefer some of the old "blurry" font renderings to a lot of modern ones, at least on regular displays)
As the main author of rustybuzz I'm surprised to hear this. If you need a text shaper, rustybuzz is mostly a drop-in replacement for harfbuzz.
Text shaping and TrueType parsing are hard problems, but Rust does not make them more complicated. Quite the opposite. In fact, rustybuzz is written in 100% safe Rust. I would even go further and say that Rust is the only sane option for solving text-related tasks.
But I think the power of legacy and a bigger community is not to be underestimated.
> An experimental engine Servo originally launched by Mozilla as a successor to Gecko, is implemented in Rust. It was eventually abandoned by Mozilla when Mozilla Corporation announced laying off a quarter of its staff in 2020 and transferred to The Linux Foundation, then in 2023 to TLF Europe. While still experimental, it has been under active development again since 2023. Servo currently uses Rust bindings to Harfbuzz.
I'd say Servo is going pretty well. The git is fairly active and monthly updates on their blog paint a positive picture of the rate of progress. I try the engine out roughly monthly after the blog posts drop and when I last did a few days ago I was impressed to see a lot of my most used websites being displayed correctly. At this rate, I think it could become viable much sooner than we think. However, the project is still critically underfunded, currently only getting a monthly $2229USD according to their website.