[bug #63334] \[u....] syntax for ASCII characters handled inconsistently

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug#63334 (group groff):

[comment #0 original submission:]
> Looking at all the pre-alphabet ASCII symbols:
> 
> $ printf "\\[u%04x] " $(seq 32 64) | nroff | cat -s

This produces some incorrect syntax: printf's "%04x" conversion produces hex
digits with lowercase letters, but groff needs uppercase.  Changing the "x" to
"X" corrects this.

> Five of them are handled as expected, 15 are converted to
> unrecognized \ characters, and 13 are not recognized at all.  

The news gets better (or worse) when you fix the above syntax error.  Now 8
characters are handled as expected, 23 are converted to unrecognized \
characters, and 2 are not recognized at all.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

Re: More on Tibetan, or rather: ligatures

[Dave Kemper]

On 1/21/24, Oliver Corff via  wrote:
> Now the question which is not language-specific: In how far can groff
> access these font-internal lookup tables? It appears that the "naive"
> approach does not trigger the ligature mechanism in the font, as
> demonstrated by Tom's and Deri's examples.
>
> Is it possible that every \[u0Fxx] is (perhaps invisibly) isolated, akin
> to putting every character in {f}{f}{l} if you want to make sure in TeX
> that no ligature will spring into action?

It's much simpler than that: groff supports only five specific
ligatures: fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl.  See section 5.19.8 (Ligatures
and Kerning) of the 1.23 version of the info manual.  (Curiously, a
more recent revision of this section downplays the significance of
this limitation by citing two specific ligatures that aren't supported
and calling them "archaic.")

There's a feature request open (http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64344)
to remove this limitation, but no one is currently working on it.

The mildly good news is that groff can access any glyph in a font,
whether or not groff recognizes it as a ligature.  For instance, the
Linux Libertine font defines a ligature for "Qu".  Groff won't invoke
it automatically, but looking in the font description file reveals
that this character is named u0051_0075, so groff can access it with
the escape \[u0051_0075].

Some glyphs in the font description file may not have names, however
(indicated by the first column of its entry being "---"), but groff
can produce even unnamed glyphs in a font with its \N escape.

Groff's .char request can make the syntax less clunky (e.g., for the
Qu ligature cited above, you could say ".char Qu \[u0051_0075]"), but
until its native ligature handling is expanded beyond its current
five, you'll still want a custom preprocessor (e.g., to change every
"Qu" in your input text to "\[Qu]" for that .char definition to work).

> Yet instead of producing the letter "f", \[u0066] generates an error
> message:  "warning: special character '\f' not defined"
>
> Where is my mistake?

This seems to be a groff bug: I reported it in
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63334 but it's not a high priority.

The reason it's not a high priority is that groff does not claim to
support representing ASCII characters in \[u00xx] format.  Even so,
groff isn't correctly parsing here, because there should be no way for
the sequence "\[u0066]" to translate to "\f": the entire string
"\[u0066]" should either translate to "f", or be undefined.

More on Tibetan, or rather: ligatures

[Oliver Corff via]

Hi,

Deri already followed up the conversation that was prompted by Tom's
questions regarding Tibetan.

I'll attempt to steer the conversation away from Tibetan towards a more
generic technical issue: processing ligatures (that's what Tom's
problems boil down to).

If we take the Tibetan syllable  རྒྱ, romanized as rgya, with the
components superscript r, baseform ga, subscript y, then what *looks*
like a single glyph is in reality a sequence of three (!) elements:

1. U+0F62 "RA" (but with the ability to change shape when combined; in
   contrast to U+0F6A which looks absolutely the same in the character
   table but does *not* enter into ligatures),
2. U+0F92 "-GA", i.e. subjoined form of base letter U+0F42, and finally
3. U+0Fb1 "-ya", subjoined form of U+0F61 YA.

All stacked vertically in one place. The same "TTT" (tiny Tibetan tower)
can have an additional layer on top (for the vowels e, i, o) or below
(for vowel u). Likewise, there is a base vowel sign for these four
(absent any of these, the vowel a is assumed), but the correct height of
the vowel glyph is taken care of by the font. It is also possible to
have one canonical vowel in the character table but a whole series of
vowel glyphs of different height in a private area of the font, not
necessarily user-accessible.

I haven't inspected the internal structure of the Tibetan fonts I use on
my machine, but the syllable rgya is displayed properly when copied into
a shell prompt, and e.g. in vim the key sequence g a reveals the
composition and the code points. So I assume the font does all the
shaping work, via its lookup tables.

Now the question which is not language-specific: In how far can groff
access these font-internal lookup tables? It appears that the "naive"
approach does not trigger the ligature mechanism in the font, as
demonstrated by Tom's and Deri's examples.

Is it possible that every \[u0Fxx] is (perhaps invisibly) isolated, akin
to putting every character in {f}{f}{l} if you want to make sure in TeX
that no ligature will spring into action?

I tried to test this hypothesis by making a minimal document, ff.roff

.P
ff \" generates ligature in PDF file
\[u0066]\[u0066] \" I hoped to see something like ff, but get an error
message

Yet instead of producing the letter "f", \[u0066] generates an error
message:  "warning: special character '\f' not defined"

Where is my mistake?

I then tried the basic Latin range with other letters, like \[u0041],
but get the message: "warning: special character '\A' not defined"

Which looks as if the character code is translated correctly but the
backslash "special character" component is newly introduced.

Or is there a lower floor for the \[u] notation which I am not aware of?

So, when typesetting "ff" or "ffi" in groff, will groff build or not
build the ligature and request the glyph [ff] or [ffi] from the font, or
could the font do that based on its own knowledge of ligatures via the
appropriate lookup table?

In other words, for a working implementation of Tibetan in groff, should
I write a series conditional character substitutions, or is there a way
send the characters to the device in such a way that the device and font
know, here comes a ligature?

Either way I am fine - a) accessing the font lookup table, or b)
implement a comprehensive set of ligatures in groff.

Best regards,

Oliver.



--
Dr. Oliver Corff
mailto:oliver.co...@email.de

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Tom]

Sounds like a pleasant challenge to bring Tibetan to groff: accepted!

Thank you. Your response cheers me up.

I have few years experience in gtroff. Lately for a period of few months
I've tried ConText, and well, there is some chaos there, but it works 
good. Unfortunately my mind can't really switch to Tex thinking.

The only simple reason was that the Context has a Lua in it's base
and it was tempting to try.
I think in gtroff way, it is simple and direct. I would like
to mention here that I might in near future use Lua language to build
preprocessors for groff.

I'm typesetting more and more books in gtroff, and now there is
more need to typeset books with tibetan script.
I would like to prepare macros for tibetan and pecha format that is why
proper font displaying and as such right composition is very crucial.

If there is a need to extensively test fonts I can propose my simple help,
but I will need some directions I can follow.


Regards,
Tom

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Oliver Corff via]

Hi Tom,

thank you for the detailed materials.

In my post, I only mentioned the wrong rata yata, I did not even mention
the misplaced vowels but I noticed them, of course.

Sounds like a pleasant challenge to bring Tibetan to groff: accepted!

Best regards,

Oliver.


On 21/01/2024 21:31, Tom wrote:

Hi Oliver

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། to you as well.
Thank you for such a long detailed response.
As you can see yourself, all compositions are missing, yata and rata
are placed but not supescripted or subscripted. Vowels are present but
placed not properly.

I have tried as well TibMachUni but from Arch distro. More fonts I've
tried are:
YagpoTibetanSambhotaUni, NotoSerifTibetan, Jomolhari, MonlamUniChouk,
and great Qomolangma-* which I prefer.

With your experience about ISO/Unicode would you mind
to help and bring tibetan fonts to groff and troff?

You asked for source code, it is just basic test.
Thirstily I have just added/installed fonts to
/../groff/site-font/devpdf and /../devps with install-font.sh script.
Next, mounted
and used sample of tibetan text.

If I can suggest you to use YagpoTibetanUni font for test,
https://www.fontspace.com/yagpo-tibetan-sambhota-uni-font-f44981

I used text:
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུྃ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔
Warning output from groff was:
troff::16: warning: special character 'u0F04' not
defined ...

For test you can use directly:

\[u0F04]\[u0F05]\[u0F0D]
\[u0F0D]\[u0F51]\[u0F56]\[u0F74]\[u0F0B]\[u0F58]\[u0F0B]\[u0F62]\[u0FA9]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F60]\[u0F72]\[u0F0B]\[u0F5A]\[u0F72]\[u0F42]\[u0F0B]\[u0F63]\[u0F7A]\[u0F60]\[u0F74]\[u0F62]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0FB1]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F54]\[u0F0B]\[u0F64]\[u0F7A]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F62]\[u0F56]\[u0F0B]\[u0F45]\[u0F7A]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0FB1]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F5E]\[u0F74]\[u0F42]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F66]\[u0F7C]\[u0F0D]

Those are outputted in warning by groff as not defined.
Most of fonts I've tried, outputs same warnings.
And Mounted BabelStoneTibetan, TibMachUni and Jomolhari fonts renders
pdf but with failed compositions.


Regards,
Tom









Tibetan script vertical stacks are built in a quite regular fashion.
It is possible to completely rely on Latin (ASCII) input and have the
ligature mechanism of the font perform the necessary acrobatics.

Long before Unicode was widely accepted and in use, I had written
such a system for TeX/LaTeX: https://ctan.org/pkg/ctib4tex

The ligature in question appears on line no. 2 of page 8 of the pdf
documentation. §3. 2 Known transliteration problems" on p. 5 of said
document demonstrates the problem of consonant clusters which may
lead to incorrect ligatures.

At that time, I still relied on Metafont sources. I never reworked
the package for Unicode fonts, but on the other hand this is an
incentive to create a Latin-input driven Tibetan macro package for
groff which also accepts native Tibetan as input.

May I kindly ask you to post the source code of your trial file? Then
I can dig deeper into the ligature problem.

Best regards,

Oliver.



On 21/01/2024 18:48, Deri wrote:

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 00:28:42 GMT Oliver Corff via wrote:

Hi Tom,

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།

(sorry, I forgot the shad)

have you tried the font TibMachUni-1.901b.ttf? It is available via

package manager e.g. in Fedora 39.

Can post a source file for your examples, please? I may try in
tomorrow.

Best regards,

Oliver.

On 21/01/2024 00:09, Tom wrote:

Hi,

I did typeset few books in Heirloom Troff with quite good outcome.
For next book I need to use Tibetan font and unfortunately I can't
make work in Heirloom Troff and Groff, only Neatroff does work.

Right now I'm eager to completely switch to Groff. I can make any
font
work in Groff but not Tibetan. To my basic knowledge, I guess it is
all about blwm and blws not accessible. There are only few Tibetan
fonts with complex glyph composition which works in Neatroff. In
groff
I have managed only BabelStoneTibetan to display but several glyphs
doesn't compose.

For viewing I have attached Groff and Neatroff pdfs.

YagpoTibetanUni: 100% composing in Neatroff but 100% failed in Groff
and Heirloom troff.
BabelStoneTibetan: 100% failed in Groff and Neatroff.

I have tried various tibetan fonts, as well NotoSerifTibetan present
in linux repositories. All those fonts don't work and groff yields:
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F04' not
defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F05' not
defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F0D' not
defined
...

If I understand enough, the warnings are about missing glyph
mappings.

Would you mind to have a look and check if Tibetan fonts are possible
to make work in Groff ? I appreciate for any hints, and direction I
can follow to make it happen.


Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom,

Using the font suggested by Oliver (after installing it with Peter
Schafter's
install-font.sh script) and using the latest unicode aware pdf
generation
version of groff (awaiting 

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Tom]

Hi Oliver

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། to you as well.
Thank you for such a long detailed response.
As you can see yourself, all compositions are missing, yata and rata are 
placed but not supescripted or subscripted. Vowels are present but

placed not properly.

I have tried as well TibMachUni but from Arch distro. More fonts I've 
tried are:

YagpoTibetanSambhotaUni, NotoSerifTibetan, Jomolhari, MonlamUniChouk,
and great Qomolangma-* which I prefer.

With your experience about ISO/Unicode would you mind
to help and bring tibetan fonts to groff and troff?

You asked for source code, it is just basic test.
Thirstily I have just added/installed fonts to 
/../groff/site-font/devpdf and /../devps with install-font.sh script. 
Next, mounted

and used sample of tibetan text.

If I can suggest you to use YagpoTibetanUni font for test, 
https://www.fontspace.com/yagpo-tibetan-sambhota-uni-font-f44981


I used text:
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུྃ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔
Warning output from groff was:
troff::16: warning: special character 'u0F04' not 
defined ...


For test you can use directly:

\[u0F04]\[u0F05]\[u0F0D] 
\[u0F0D]\[u0F51]\[u0F56]\[u0F74]\[u0F0B]\[u0F58]\[u0F0B]\[u0F62]\[u0FA9]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F60]\[u0F72]\[u0F0B]\[u0F5A]\[u0F72]\[u0F42]\[u0F0B]\[u0F63]\[u0F7A]\[u0F60]\[u0F74]\[u0F62]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0FB1]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F54]\[u0F0B]\[u0F64]\[u0F7A]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F62]\[u0F56]\[u0F0B]\[u0F45]\[u0F7A]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0FB1]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F0B]\[u0F56]\[u0F5E]\[u0F74]\[u0F42]\[u0F66]\[u0F0B]\[u0F66]\[u0F7C]\[u0F0D]


Those are outputted in warning by groff as not defined.
Most of fonts I've tried, outputs same warnings.
And Mounted BabelStoneTibetan, TibMachUni and Jomolhari fonts renders 
pdf but with failed compositions.



Regards,
Tom









Tibetan script vertical stacks are built in a quite regular fashion. It 
is possible to completely rely on Latin (ASCII) input and have the 
ligature mechanism of the font perform the necessary acrobatics.


Long before Unicode was widely accepted and in use, I had written such a 
system for TeX/LaTeX: https://ctan.org/pkg/ctib4tex


The ligature in question appears on line no. 2 of page 8 of the pdf 
documentation. §3. 2 Known transliteration problems" on p. 5 of said 
document demonstrates the problem of consonant clusters which may lead 
to incorrect ligatures.


At that time, I still relied on Metafont sources. I never reworked the 
package for Unicode fonts, but on the other hand this is an incentive to 
create a Latin-input driven Tibetan macro package for groff which also 
accepts native Tibetan as input.


May I kindly ask you to post the source code of your trial file? Then I 
can dig deeper into the ligature problem.


Best regards,

Oliver.



On 21/01/2024 18:48, Deri wrote:

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 00:28:42 GMT Oliver Corff via wrote:

Hi Tom,

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།

(sorry, I forgot the shad)

have you tried the font TibMachUni-1.901b.ttf? It is available via

package manager e.g. in Fedora 39.

Can post a source file for your examples, please? I may try in tomorrow.

Best regards,

Oliver.

On 21/01/2024 00:09, Tom wrote:

Hi,

I did typeset few books in Heirloom Troff with quite good outcome.
For next book I need to use Tibetan font and unfortunately I can't
make work in Heirloom Troff and Groff, only Neatroff does work.

Right now I'm eager to completely switch to Groff. I can make any font
work in Groff but not Tibetan. To my basic knowledge, I guess it is
all about blwm and blws not accessible. There are only few Tibetan
fonts with complex glyph composition which works in Neatroff. In groff
I have managed only BabelStoneTibetan to display but several glyphs
doesn't compose.

For viewing I have attached Groff and Neatroff pdfs.

YagpoTibetanUni: 100% composing in Neatroff but 100% failed in Groff
and Heirloom troff.
BabelStoneTibetan: 100% failed in Groff and Neatroff.

I have tried various tibetan fonts, as well NotoSerifTibetan present
in linux repositories. All those fonts don't work and groff yields:
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F04' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F05' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F0D' not defined
...

If I understand enough, the warnings are about missing glyph mappings.

Would you mind to have a look and check if Tibetan fonts are possible
to make work in Groff ? I appreciate for any hints, and direction I
can follow to make it happen.


Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom,

Using the font suggested by Oliver (after installing it with Peter Schafter's
install-font.sh script) and using the latest unicode aware pdf generation
version of groff (awaiting release by Branden), with this script:-

.ft TibetanR \" What I called Oliver's suggested font
.ps 24
.vs 28
.pdfbookmark 1 བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
.br
.ad l
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔

It 

[bug #59962] soelim(1) man page uses pic diagram--should it?

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #14, bug#59962 (group groff):

[comment #12 comment #12:]
> I reported the originating issue to po4a (Debian bug #1061234),

That's http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061234 in clickable
form (or rather, a form that takes you to the right place when you click it;
savannah turns the above into an invalid savannah link).


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Tom]

Hi Deri

Thank you for trying out with latest unicode aware version of groff.
Would you mind to try the YagpoTibetanUni font 
https://www.fontspace.com/yagpo-tibetan-sambhota-uni-font-f44981

This one gives very good rendition in Neatroff.

All fonts which I've tried were installed with Peter Schafter's
install-font.sh

Yours results are the same as mine, there are missing superscripted and 
subscripted glyphs which should be rendered as different joined form.


Regards,
Tom



On Sunday, 21 January 2024 00:28:42 GMT Oliver Corff via wrote:

Hi Tom,

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།

(sorry, I forgot the shad)

have you tried the font TibMachUni-1.901b.ttf? It is available via

package manager e.g. in Fedora 39.

Can post a source file for your examples, please? I may try in tomorrow.

Best regards,

Oliver.

On 21/01/2024 00:09, Tom wrote:

Hi,

I did typeset few books in Heirloom Troff with quite good outcome.
For next book I need to use Tibetan font and unfortunately I can't
make work in Heirloom Troff and Groff, only Neatroff does work.

Right now I'm eager to completely switch to Groff. I can make any font
work in Groff but not Tibetan. To my basic knowledge, I guess it is
all about blwm and blws not accessible. There are only few Tibetan
fonts with complex glyph composition which works in Neatroff. In groff
I have managed only BabelStoneTibetan to display but several glyphs
doesn't compose.

For viewing I have attached Groff and Neatroff pdfs.

YagpoTibetanUni: 100% composing in Neatroff but 100% failed in Groff
and Heirloom troff.
BabelStoneTibetan: 100% failed in Groff and Neatroff.

I have tried various tibetan fonts, as well NotoSerifTibetan present
in linux repositories. All those fonts don't work and groff yields:
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F04' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F05' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F0D' not defined
...

If I understand enough, the warnings are about missing glyph mappings.

Would you mind to have a look and check if Tibetan fonts are possible
to make work in Groff ? I appreciate for any hints, and direction I
can follow to make it happen.


Regards,
Tom




Hi Tom,

Using the font suggested by Oliver (after installing it with Peter Schafter's
install-font.sh script) and using the latest unicode aware pdf generation
version of groff (awaiting release by Branden), with this script:-

.ft TibetanR \" What I called Oliver's suggested font
.ps 24
.vs 28
.pdfbookmark 1 བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
.br
.ad l
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔

It produced the attached.

Cheers

Deri

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Oliver Corff via]

Hi Deri,

thank you for taking the iniative. I spent a whole weekend without computer.

Unfortunately, the font I suggested does not work either.

The problem is exemplified by the ligature rgy-. on the second line of
the original text, quite at the beginning. The base letter here is ག g,
with a superscript ར r- and a subscript ཡ -y- . (I showed the base
forms). The correct composition is: རྒྱ As you can see, the r is reduced
to it top stroke, and the subscript -y- is reduced to a swoosh-like
angle which is also available at code point U+0FB1 TIBETAN SUBJOINED
LETTER YA.

The complete ligatures are *not* part of the Unicode standard for
Tibetan since it is not the aim to encode the appearance; the semantics
gets encoded. In the late 1990s, I participated in the standard work for
ISO/Unicode of several Asian languages and scripts.

The problem present in Tom's non-ok files is the same as in Deri's
example. I'll have to dig into the ligature tables which should make the
right selection of glyphs why they are not triggered as expected.

In the flawed files, it is visible that the base forms of these latters
are stacked in one place, but without selection of proper glyph shape.

Tibetan script vertical stacks are built in a quite regular fashion. It
is possible to completely rely on Latin (ASCII) input and have the
ligature mechanism of the font perform the necessary acrobatics.

Long before Unicode was widely accepted and in use, I had written such a
system for TeX/LaTeX: https://ctan.org/pkg/ctib4tex

The ligature in question appears on line no. 2 of page 8 of the pdf
documentation. §3. 2 Known transliteration problems" on p. 5 of said
document demonstrates the problem of consonant clusters which may lead
to incorrect ligatures.

At that time, I still relied on Metafont sources. I never reworked the
package for Unicode fonts, but on the other hand this is an incentive to
create a Latin-input driven Tibetan macro package for groff which also
accepts native Tibetan as input.

May I kindly ask you to post the source code of your trial file? Then I
can dig deeper into the ligature problem.

Best regards,

Oliver.



On 21/01/2024 18:48, Deri wrote:

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 00:28:42 GMT Oliver Corff via wrote:

Hi Tom,

བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།

(sorry, I forgot the shad)

have you tried the font TibMachUni-1.901b.ttf? It is available via

package manager e.g. in Fedora 39.

Can post a source file for your examples, please? I may try in tomorrow.

Best regards,

Oliver.

On 21/01/2024 00:09, Tom wrote:

Hi,

I did typeset few books in Heirloom Troff with quite good outcome.
For next book I need to use Tibetan font and unfortunately I can't
make work in Heirloom Troff and Groff, only Neatroff does work.

Right now I'm eager to completely switch to Groff. I can make any font
work in Groff but not Tibetan. To my basic knowledge, I guess it is
all about blwm and blws not accessible. There are only few Tibetan
fonts with complex glyph composition which works in Neatroff. In groff
I have managed only BabelStoneTibetan to display but several glyphs
doesn't compose.

For viewing I have attached Groff and Neatroff pdfs.

YagpoTibetanUni: 100% composing in Neatroff but 100% failed in Groff
and Heirloom troff.
BabelStoneTibetan: 100% failed in Groff and Neatroff.

I have tried various tibetan fonts, as well NotoSerifTibetan present
in linux repositories. All those fonts don't work and groff yields:
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F04' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F05' not defined
troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F0D' not defined
...

If I understand enough, the warnings are about missing glyph mappings.

Would you mind to have a look and check if Tibetan fonts are possible
to make work in Groff ? I appreciate for any hints, and direction I
can follow to make it happen.


Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom,

Using the font suggested by Oliver (after installing it with Peter Schafter's
install-font.sh script) and using the latest unicode aware pdf generation
version of groff (awaiting release by Branden), with this script:-

.ft TibetanR \" What I called Oliver's suggested font
.ps 24
.vs 28
.pdfbookmark 1 བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
.br
.ad l
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔

It produced the attached.

Cheers

Deri


--
Dr. Oliver Corff
Wittelsbacherstr. 5A
10707 Berlin
GERMANY
Tel.: +49-30-85727260
mailto:oliver.co...@email.de

Re: Tibetan fonts

[Deri]

On Sunday, 21 January 2024 00:28:42 GMT Oliver Corff via wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
> 
> (sorry, I forgot the shad)
> 
> have you tried the font TibMachUni-1.901b.ttf? It is available via
> 
> package manager e.g. in Fedora 39.
> 
> Can post a source file for your examples, please? I may try in tomorrow.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Oliver.
> 
> On 21/01/2024 00:09, Tom wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I did typeset few books in Heirloom Troff with quite good outcome.
> > For next book I need to use Tibetan font and unfortunately I can't
> > make work in Heirloom Troff and Groff, only Neatroff does work.
> > 
> > Right now I'm eager to completely switch to Groff. I can make any font
> > work in Groff but not Tibetan. To my basic knowledge, I guess it is
> > all about blwm and blws not accessible. There are only few Tibetan
> > fonts with complex glyph composition which works in Neatroff. In groff
> > I have managed only BabelStoneTibetan to display but several glyphs
> > doesn't compose.
> > 
> > For viewing I have attached Groff and Neatroff pdfs.
> > 
> > YagpoTibetanUni: 100% composing in Neatroff but 100% failed in Groff
> > and Heirloom troff.
> > BabelStoneTibetan: 100% failed in Groff and Neatroff.
> > 
> > I have tried various tibetan fonts, as well NotoSerifTibetan present
> > in linux repositories. All those fonts don't work and groff yields:
> > troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F04' not defined
> > troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F05' not defined
> > troff::20: warning: special character 'u0F0D' not defined
> > ...
> > 
> > If I understand enough, the warnings are about missing glyph mappings.
> > 
> > Would you mind to have a look and check if Tibetan fonts are possible
> > to make work in Groff ? I appreciate for any hints, and direction I
> > can follow to make it happen.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> 

Hi Tom,

Using the font suggested by Oliver (after installing it with Peter Schafter's 
install-font.sh script) and using the latest unicode aware pdf generation 
version of groff (awaiting release by Branden), with this script:-

.ft TibetanR \" What I called Oliver's suggested font
.ps 24
.vs 28
.pdfbookmark 1 བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས།
.br
.ad l
༄༅། །དབུ་མ་རྩ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།
ཧཱུ༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ནུབ་བྱང་མཚམས༔

It produced the attached. 

Cheers

Deri


Tibetan.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

[bug #59962] soelim(1) man page uses pic diagram--should it?

[G. Branden Robinson]

Update of bug#59962 (group groff):

  Status:   Need Info => Invalid
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 

___

Follow-up Comment #13:


[comment #12 comment #12:]
> Hello all,
> first, I reported the originating issue to po4a (Debian bug #1061234), so
this is really no longer any issue in roff. So I think this ticket can be
resolved.

Okay.  Resolving as "Invalid" since the issue didn't end up applying to
_groff_.

> secondly, thanks for all the additional feedback, especially the
accessibility issue I can understand.

Glad to be of help.
 
> Finally, echo $TERM says
> linux

So am I.

On my virtual consoles, which use the Latin-9 character set, I don't get ACS
characters at all (not a surprise, _grotty_(1) doesn't know how to produce
them...yet).  I assume you're using some sort of UTF-8-enhanced terminal.

That's going to be a problem; you and I are going to need to use different
terminal types, and _getty_(8) or _logind_(8) is going to have to set $TERM
appropriately for the driver managing the VT.

This may be tough to resolve; historically, the big firms that dominate Linux
kernel development have shown scant interest in supporting bug fixes or
development of the Linux VT environment beyond, I suppose, whatever is the
minimum necessary to support an on-call admin remotely accessing machines
hosted in a data center to reconfigure containerized network services.

The [https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ncurses bug-ncurses list] may
be a good next stop for troubleshooting the issue you're having. 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #59962] soelim(1) man page uses pic diagram--should it?

[Helge Kreutzmann]

Follow-up Comment #12, bug#59962 (group groff):

Hello all,
first, I reported the originating issue to po4a (Debian bug #1061234), so this
is really no longer any issue in roff. So I think this ticket can be
resolved.

secondly, thanks for all the additional feedback, especially the accessibility
issue I can understand.

Finally, echo $TERM says
linux


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/