Khaled Hosny wrote:
(Moved from lautex mailing list, more bellow)
char 1614 and 1617 are to be relatively positioned using mkmk, so we need a mark and a basemark match an donly anchor-11 qualifies as basemark but ... { ["anchors"]={ ["basemark"]={["Anchor-11"]={["x"]=0,["y"]=250,},}, ["mark"]={["Anchor-13"]={["x"]=0,["y"]=-100,},["Anchor-7" ]={["x"]=0,["y"]=0,},}, }, ["name"]="shadda", ["unicode"]=1617, }, { ["anchors"]={ ["mark"]={["Anchor-13"]={["x"]=0,["y"]=-100,},["Anchor-7"]={["x"]=0,["y"]=0,},}, }, ["name"]="fatha", ["unicode"]=1614, }, there is no mark reference in 1614 ... i'm not that fluent in fontforge so i cannot play further
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:11:38PM +0300, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 12:53:56PM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:10:23AM +0200, Taco Hoekwater wrote: > Hans Hagen wrote: >> Khaled Hosny wrote: >> >>> I also tried "Nafees Nastaliq" font >>> http://www.crulp.org/software/localization/Fonts/nafeesNastaleeq.html >>> with also broken result. >>> >>>> See also the arabic chapter (XIII) in mk.pdf: >>>> >>>> http://pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/mk.pdf >>> I was actually testing the fonts under its guidance :) >> Can you two team up on this issue? the problem is that esp the >> scripting part of OT is not really defined, only has de facto >> specs i.e. reversed engineered uniscribe. > I had a quick look at the font with fontforge. It could that > (part of the) problems are related to the fact that most of the > glyph encodings > in the font do not follow unicode, even though the font claims to be a > UnicodeBMP encoded font. It is quite possible that that confuses the > contextual analyser in MkIV. I'm relaying solely on OpenType here, i.e. the actual glyphs aren't encoded and using isol, init, etc features to map characters to the appropriate glyphs.
I tested it with two other OpenType implementations, and I got the expected result.
Khaled Hosny wrote: this mkmk feature ...
(1) is it directionally sensitive? some features are marked as r2l, some not No its not, I think r2l is applicable for cursive anchors and should mean nothing here (I was trying some thing but forget to remove it after). I removed r2l marl from all tables (except curs), but this changed nothing.
(2) do you use proper mark -> basemark? or just mark to mark? keep in mind that when you update your font, you have to remove the cached version I removed the enteries in fonts/otf of the cache dir, is this enough?
Uploaded Pango output of the same string for comparison, http://khaled.djihed.com/context/ (Note: the dots are marks, not part of the base glyph; the dot is basemark and the haraka is mark).
Thanks, Khaled
Khaled
Hans
----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localizer and member of Arabeyes.org team
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------