Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476427 --- Comment #4 from Padmanabhan V. K. <[email protected]> 2009-01-25 13:59:04 EDT --- I think I have a fix to this problem (but not compatible with the latest .sfd format in use at http://fedorahosted.org/lohit/browser/trunk/Lohit-Telugu.sfd) and some justification for it. I hope someone can fix the font correspondingly. I am put up with an old Mandriva distro with pango-1.10.0-3mdk and fontforge-1.0-0.20050809.1mdk. I used the Lohit Telugu font extracted from lohit-fonts-2.3.1-1.fc10.src.rpm and the Pothana2000 font from http://www.kavya-nandanam.com/dload.htm. For comparing the fonts, I created .sfd's using the above fontforge (which cannot create or open the latest .sfd format). I extracted the sources for pango-1.10.0-3mdk and added a few debug messages and observed the difference between the messages produced while rendering "U+0c2f U+0c4d U+0c30 U+0c4d" for the 2 fonts (pasting the combination into the font selection dialog for gvim while Pothana2000 is selected and then selecting Lohit Telugu). The debug messages show a "haln" substitution that is performed only for Pothana2000 and not Lohit Telugu. The entire sequence of substitutions for Pothana2000 is: ya + ra + halant + halant (Pango-reordered) --blwf-> ya + below-base-ra + halant --blws-> ya + wide-below-base-ra + halant --haln-> ya-halant + below-base-ra. The way Pothana2000 differs from Lohit Telugu is two-fold. First, the below-base forms are shown with "gproperties 0x8" in the messages as opposed to "gproperties 0x2" which corresponds to the opentype glyph class "mark" as opposed to "base glyph." >From Pothana2000.sfd: ChainSub: coverage 0 1 'blws' 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Coverage: 25 RaOttuWide1 RaOttuMiddle1 BCoverage: 114 Jha Ya ... 1 SeqLookup: 0 'L005' EndFPST ... StartChar: RaOttuWide1 ... GlyphClass: 4 ... EndChar ... StartChar: RaOttuMiddle1 ... GlyphClass: 4 ... Substitution: 0 65534 'L005' RaOttuWide1 ... Ligature: 0 1 'blwf' Ra Halanth EndChar >From Lohit-Telugu.sfd: ChainSub: coverage 0 0 'blws' 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Coverage: 16 U0C30_U0C4D.blwf BCoverage: 5 U0C2F 1 SeqLookup: 0 'L321' EndFPST ... StartChar: U0C30_U0C4D.blwf ... GlyphClass: 2 ... Substitution: 0 65534 'L321' glyph495 ... Ligature: 0 0 'blwf' U0C30 U0C4D EndChar ... StartChar: glyph495 ... GlyphClass: 2 ... EndChar Second, the ligation rules for halanth say all marks of other types according to the "MarkAttachClasses" should be ignored. >From Pothana2000.sfd: MarkAttachClasses: 11 ... "MarkClass-10" 7 Halanth ... StartChar: YaHalanth ... GlyphClass: 3 ... Ligature: 2560 1 'haln' Ya Halanth ... EndChar (Note 2560 = 0xa00, i.e. all marks of types other than type 10 -- which happens to be called MarkClass-10 and includes just the halanth -- should be ignored) >From Lohit Telugu.sfd: StartChar: U0C2F_U0C4D.haln ... GlyphClass: 2 ... Ligature: 0 0 'haln' U0C2F U0C4D ... EndChar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
