(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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
