[NTG-context] [Dev-luatex] State of OpenType support

Khaled Hosny khaledhosny at eglug.org
Thu May 8 17:53:21 CEST 2008


(Moved from lautex mailing list, more bellow)

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:
> >>> Khaled Hosny 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.
> >>> 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

-- 
 Khaled Hosny
 Arabic localizer and member of Arabeyes.org team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/attachments/20080508/6d5be9de/attachment.bin 


More information about the ntg-context mailing list