From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display of Lao script Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:40:27 +0300 Message-ID: <83zi8penic.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874lqyvg78.fsf@gmx.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1508258653 4895 195.159.176.226 (17 Oct 2017 16:44:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Berman , Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 17 18:44:08 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e4Uy9-0007X2-EY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:43:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40517 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4UyG-0008E4-TP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:44:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44159) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4UvC-0005Rg-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:40:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4UvB-0007Bp-KI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:40:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51329) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4Uv4-000741-En; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:40:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2884 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e4Uv3-0004zl-Qb; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:40:42 -0400 In-reply-to: <874lqyvg78.fsf@gmx.net> (message from Stephen Berman on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:14:03 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:219608 Archived-At: [Adding Handa-san, in the hope that he could comment on this.] > From: Stephen Berman > Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:14:03 +0200 > > Is this difference expected? I'm not familiar with the Lao script, so I > don't know if one of the displays is wrong, though this quote from > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_alphabet seems to suggest that either > way is possible: "Vowels can be written above, below, in front of, or > behind consonants, with some vowel combinations written before, over and > after." This is m17n-lib-1.7.0 and libotf-0.9.13 from > http://www.nongnu.org/m17n/, which are AFAIK the latest released > versions (there's a patch for Bengali in etc/PROBLEMS, but I don't know > of any problem report about Lao). (Regardless if what's correct, my > aesthetic impression is that the first display, without m17n and libotf, > looks better; however, I do know that the Arabic example in HELLO is > correctly displayed only with these libraries). I see a better display here, on MS-Windows. Can you try a different font, perhaps one that is advertised to have good support for the Lao script? AFAIK, libotf/libm17n (as any other shaping engine) depend on font capabilities to some extent.