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: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:01:12 +0000 Message-ID: <20220216190112.3ee79598@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> <20220215210605.1c41c1b2@JRWUBU2> <83a6er2br1.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="15215"; 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 Wed Feb 16 20:02:15 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 1nKPZ7-0003la-DA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:02:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44112 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPZ6-0002tn-2J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:02:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46672) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYw-0002qb-Gt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:02:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55574) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYw-0006fC-6l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:02:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYw-0006YC-5I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:02:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Richard Wordingham Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:02:02 +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=B20140.164503808425130 (code B ref 20140); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20140) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Feb 2022 19:01:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49471 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYJ-0006XG-Nm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:01:24 -0500 Original-Received: from smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net ([212.54.57.96]:47314) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYG-0006Wz-QZ for 20140@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:01:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.54.57.105] (helo=csmtp1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPYA-0005v8-EC for 20140@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:01:14 +0100 Original-Received: from JRWUBU2 ([82.27.122.109]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id KPY9nqEAdI8uBKPY9nhTSK; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:01:14 +0100 X-SourceIP: 82.27.122.109 X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.4 cv=Oupcdgzt c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=620d49fa 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=zD6b-fzW1TWd-ClxL08A: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=1645038074; bh=vdtLC+VygBUefJNcYlWu+XoZW5Y6peo+qBc8VKFNt6M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=NK6nTajur4orK6klQmbYApI0C2QK9sxqEQX8L46WyBzG9li4i6WnjVLMXxie++nzc 0puYPpcNF5LRM4FqvdzmPflqDtr0FAmXl7e/r9bf8yJUgnsRJxOy5mDciBqRqiHS8K 7AdAGSTEs+XOHUlMKpm0BD/REzsS+1rRoFoPYUeg1gadI8WYnQAI6xoVZ/uqdkGKqY R5pc76heHvkUFGSOAl3jT0By16Yw+m+9moQ0+Sv+WrCL6q+pr+1y2Rv1mKxQCyrc8F mnRunzxucZEyvxHH65hHWMmSbjy3ACb+nKBuYASupzcS9XL57iOGE92B2QvlnDDS7w Uu2WacgbNk69g== In-Reply-To: <83a6er2br1.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfLXIV/RbV1n//oEFOs/YIoKntbAeLlDFuobYIcLKpyrBxu49nnY2j8YRsy2552cke2JrJNdQvVQna23zIf7nntHmMui8mFbgpm5LM2P5xX954HLaUnY/ ofSaQrt9GbXqg71srEpV4BL//LFEMbrl39AVCIkPzQxDemKSL6lphLaVsMoK+dQAxcsUbRkZa0G1zkKLIlNHbitc/PNQeVeGzKRvx08Xe7URdFwdeOFBbMYN r0fFycaPoZUFmiSxby/zag== 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:227051 Archived-At: On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:15:46 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:06:05 +0000 > > From: Richard Wordingham > > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 20140@debbugs.gnu.org > > =20 > > > > Not off the top of my head, but compare =D9=84=D8=AD=D8=AC with the > > > > presentation form =E2=80=8E=EF=B3=8A U+FCCA ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WIT= H HAH > > > > INITIAL FORM 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? =20 > >=20 > > 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 > U+062C>. 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. =20 >=20 > It sounds like Courier New in Windows 10 was "improved" by removing > the capability of ligating those 2 characters. On Windows XP, their > standard Courier New shows the first 2 characters ligate into a single > glyph, which looks just like U+FCCA, but on Windows 10 they don't > ligate. I don't know why is that; perhaps Arabic typesetting experts > decided these should not ligate? >=20 > > I must admit I'm having trouble laying my hand on a font which > > does these ligatures. =20 >=20 > Try the Arabic Typesetting font, there I see on Windows 10 that the > first 2 characters look like U+FCCA. >=20 > IOW, this is a font issue, not an Emacs or HarfBuzz issue. Arabic Typesetting seems not to come in an evaluation copy of Windows 10. And yes, the issue is that some fonts probably don't work well with Emacs. Irritating, but mostly not a big problem. Richard.