Re: Not able to display \u110BD and \u110CD in Emacs

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 23:51:57 +0530 (IST)
> Cc: lumarzeli30@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Madhu <enometh@meer.net>
> 
> I've explained it in the messages upthread with the
> references. briefly Sameer exhibited this picture
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-04/png4ClBZc1zV4.png
> in his first message on this thread
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-04/msg01297.html
> 
> The composition shows that the first character spans the numerals.
> 
> I tried to reproduce it. I showed my work in this message:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-05/msg00341.html
> where I showed the shell command to invoke hb-view, and attached the
> text file 12.txt and the output 12.png. (the png attachment is not
> visible on lists.gnu.org - what happened?), message-id was
> <20220507.221454.1080380889007217525.enometh@meer.net>
> >
> >> a few more notes to self: The Khaiti number signs also compose only
> >> linearly in emacs
> >
> > What do you mean by "compose linearly"?
> 
> the 12.png file would have show the composition is "linear" in that
> #x110bd and #x110bc glyphs do not span the following digits like in
> the png url which Sameer posted.
> 
> >> and only when I use the same font for numerals, say:
> >
> > Emacs can only compose characters if all of the characters of a
> > composable sequence are supported by the same font.  It is
> > practically impossible to compose character glyphs from different
> > fonts, so Emacs doesn't.  If that's what you see, then it's the
> > intended behavior.
> 
> Yes, that is what I believe I'm seeing.
> 
> >> Likewise for the newly installed composition rules, I can only see
> >> them with the Siddhanta font. All the other fonts that display
> >> devanagari seem to show the thin empty vertical box to render the
> >> stress accents.
> >
> > If those "other fonts" cause the characters in a sequence not to be
> > supported by a single font, then again, this is the intended behavior.
> 
> Thanks

So are we clear about what should and does happen, or are there still
issues to be looked into in this respect?