From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Wordingham via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20140: 24.4; M17n shaper output rejected Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:06:05 +0000 Message-ID: <20220215210605.1c41c1b2@JRWUBU2> References: <20150318222040.4066e6e9@JRWUBU2> <87r18jk5nr.fsf@gnus.org> <83v8xv2icg.fsf@gnu.org> <20220205225251.08a0faab@JRWUBU2> <83sfsmpmxb.fsf@gnu.org> <20220213211152.03e2990a@JRWUBU2> <83leydpok0.fsf@gnu.org> <20220214232623.30534d5a@JRWUBU2> <83wnhw2nxy.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Richard Wordingham Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22550"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 20140@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 15 22:10:38 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nK55p-0005eq-Gl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:10:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36396 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nK55o-0001ef-2W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:10:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nK52M-0007Rz-2c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nK52L-0005B6-PO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:07:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nK52L-00077k-Kl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:07:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Richard Wordingham Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:07:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20140 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 20140-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20140.164495917527325 (code B ref 20140); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:07:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20140) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2022 21:06:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46599 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nK51a-00076e-TY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:06:15 -0500 Original-Received: from smtpq2.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net ([212.54.57.97]:46180) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nK51Z-00076S-BQ for 20140@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:06:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.54.57.111] (helo=csmtp7.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nK51T-0001Du-DO for 20140@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:06:07 +0100 Original-Received: from JRWUBU2 ([82.27.122.109]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id K51SnEWdXufb4K51Snkrl7; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:06:07 +0100 X-SourceIP: 82.27.122.109 X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.4 cv=FOAIesks c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=620c15bf cx=a_exe a=lZfnwhydZ+7bl6OdZ0zTBw==:117 a=lZfnwhydZ+7bl6OdZ0zTBw==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=oGFeUVbbRNcA:10 a=mDV3o1hIAAAA:8 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=OocQHUDgAAAA:8 a=F6aBO-N1z0GnKmalpNMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=_FVE-zBwftR9WsbkzFJk:22 a=wW_WBVUImv98JQXhvVPZ:22 a=xUZTl98r3Qw_uB5NK3jt:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ntlworld.com; s=meg.feb2017; t=1644959167; bh=nqdSHxWYJLZuCEfhas2ZkqhEAERCfw5x0qktK+zkU2M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gLiOhUOFHDgeT2cEZl8LXwRdvIBKhlySERD4LxD8I1UbEwTt86o2NaWqVwwdH5kJA wep0xUl0o4o6zNReByZgx/w66CWsnX/DBVEq3ofQMJzfkeoDqMQX/DKNinyVkFT8/m Gk3qAJevW/MoINfuBir+Hk61DE4d3MQAI736FuGTylqHvxN7zo3j/GW8I0I8VoIzva dDVP6LcKfeFxYBF8kJ6xOv6oe6Ttsx77/JfMdBGJh/Q6tmcoDoGZovpBjRqtZTOAJK SYXMfSC3F59ylN3HyfLo4ULPhFKaS2V3fRGvym7k2Zi58l8ocS8ZgNtBVamTiMfpXu 61z2l5Hr2JzBw== In-Reply-To: <83wnhw2nxy.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfJYJ3gOzcmtoCwHITNCWdv+uWpjxb8kCxvpWx4g6njgsOB1xX3xua355bbpeSMrvrnXsB79ZezdiK4gxwndrpJHJXqd69nDokOxqi+3UBkkkUZ3EiA7Q nMX2xjOpjrO1efD2J14bB82AvwFQJPnTfXZ9dlx4iXMx8HWgUP9s0YoQkSPMuu6aqPhZZAgDvkJSGr/5f32BCwhdl9LEAUbDIrgZw7e8XB3YV+e2bI0ZtH6P mVt+3BDP3mYdLy/eO2ZkkQ== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:227012 Archived-At: On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:40:09 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:26:23 +0000 > > From: Richard Wordingham > > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 20140@debbugs.gnu.org > > =20 > > > No, that's not true. I'm not aware of any such limitation; AFAIK > > > Arabic shaping works correctly in Emacs, certainly with HarfBuzz > > > and Emacs 27 or later. > > >=20 > > > Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "typewriter-like" fonts? > > > Can you give an example of a non-typewriter-like font for Arabic > > > that I can find on MS-Windows and try? =20 > >=20 > > Not off the top of my head, but compare =D9=84=D8=AD=D8=AC with the pre= sentation > > form =E2=80=8E=EF=B3=8A U+FCCA ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH HAH INITIAL FOR= M for the > > first two letters. The lam part is a vertical line in the middle > > of the glyph; the 'hah' part forms the lower part of the glyph. =20 >=20 > They look identical here (using the default Courier New font). With > what font did you think they will look wrong? In the Courier New font in Windows 10 of 2017 (+ automatic updates), U+FCCA looks like the image in the Unicode code chart, and bears little resemblance to the righthand two thirds of . In keeping with its Latin part, the sequence of three characters looks as one would expect from a typewriter when one enters text letter by letter. I must admit I'm having trouble laying my hand on a font which does these ligatures. I wanted to find a font that would render the three characters to look the same as =EF=B3=8A=EF=BA=9E . = (Sticking them together isn't working in the email client I'm using, but does work in some fallback font.) Richard.