From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Visuwesh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#53729: 29.0.50; Tamil text not shaped in modeline Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 13:37:09 +0530 Message-ID: <877dacpe2k.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87h79h438r.fsf@gmail.com> <83r18l5cc6.fsf@gnu.org> <87tudg7kzz.fsf@gmail.com> <83bkzo5rgs.fsf@gnu.org> 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="40865"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 53729@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 03 09:16:04 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 1nFXHf-000AUk-R8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 09:16:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53442 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXHe-0008GI-6V for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:16:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXC3-0008EG-UL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:10:19 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60422) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXBq-0000nE-7o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:10:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXBq-0007hc-2g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:10:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Visuwesh Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 08:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 53729 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 53729-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B53729.164387574729525 (code B ref 53729); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 08:10:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 53729) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Feb 2022 08:09:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54314 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXAx-0007g9-Eg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:09:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com ([209.85.216.66]:55870) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nFXAv-0007ff-4U for 53729@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 03:09:06 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id d5so1700294pjk.5 for <53729@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:09:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:lines:references:user-agent :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TzXMeqDG7uVpD1utJe92A6XCEGif5MZ6igcCvHMNyJk=; b=lf9wMns94HXgehtGGpNx4q4MyiaYry3d9EkVDy6X1oTMxwAz6IQhPxB9KnUhC8wLMw PybjXHWlE6gIiAfJ5mJkKRSPicdvWdU0fT8RqlPbNf4ItR1nLfR3qWkt3tmRBGz0SkTO 9cJwZF+zdcxmz0VIwZ7JOWeTpafySwjMZ4MZ2G4cgwUGVuhZLEsydT/IKwh/KMzqJZv1 hc++YRLXpFsGo2KYipk6DkXs6lcm692WCXbT5rklMidPURfoZzlNLrCJTXAzQaE3UXIA LmE2U6o9/x8tNv4LySDYZk9G+n8rWEabnkZZuWfBka+oN88PGDJevJlK/vF6J7BDtsPV A09g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:lines :references:user-agent:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TzXMeqDG7uVpD1utJe92A6XCEGif5MZ6igcCvHMNyJk=; b=ERkPpDN7/hhZEcjYPtuog+PoIre3aoOkxwEs6PtEz5Tg2l1LEdaHx5QXnpCmrxfHvt nXIbaVbIXt/8m8E5VGPj3CE5arlRlxiuo/VClqRKOjZTY6KQPxNoJsgiJS97QJYJf0Vw v/+7Zu/er+nxclm8tDhuFjgnBvgj/FQTSzEbmrGL7LWjG7fl6bWH6kEVn9NyzZZ+M/hn mU0GkZHxwP35kTosajZIx0xCnQDT8xhRu80IfftFvwKToYoceVjyixax/u0jM8vHy5rd F+RScQDZvrI8APH4w+n1bnddDuomRstMo9aJm6Sg2+vzDOkdQGBWtlAshBQFPZiBs7gQ y+0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O2JFAq4XuDptr8HB1Axz3PtNKNZzQc4azWqnCI3m0WgeCi00O ahysX8ThzjBd6+V4SRFN+Qx8paPFlvQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOlSYJ+Q2NuRUesX0SVCu9I+VIXTMYYrBIzFsK3eoMflzsgYT0+X/5WKeT5GZQgAqIHJ5tVw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4a83:: with SMTP id lp3mr12390971pjb.35.1643875739015; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:08:59 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([49.204.130.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm25851748pfc.209.2022.02.03.00.08.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:08:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83bkzo5rgs.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2022 09:39:31 +0200") Original-Lines: 57 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:225851 Archived-At: [=E0=AE=B5=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=AF=E0=AE=BE=E0=AE=B4=E0=AE=A9=E0=AF=8D, =E0=AE=AA= =E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=AA=E0=AF=8D=E0=AE=B0=E0=AE=B5=E0=AE=B0=E0=AE=BF 03 2022] El= i Zaretskii wrote: Hello, Eli >> From: Visuwesh >> Cc: 53729@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:15:01 +0530 >>=20 >> > on the mode line, the buffer is shown in bold, so perhaps there's a >> > problem with the bold variant of the Noto Serif Tamil font? If you >> > type the same text in a buffer, but give it the 'bold' face, do you >> > see the same problem with buffer text as on the mode line? >>=20 >> No, when I give it the bold face and insert it in a buffer, the text is >> shaped properly. Then, I tried setting mode-line-format to >> "=E0=AE=85=E0=AE=95=E0=AF=8D=E0=AE=95=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=9A=E0=AF=8D=E0=AE= =9A=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=B1=E0=AE=95=E0=AF=81=E0=AE=95=E0=AE=B3=E0=AF=8D" and '(:= propertize "=E0=AE=85=E0=AE=95=E0=AF=8D=E0=AE=95=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=9A=E0=AF=8D= =E0=AE=9A=E0=AE=BF=E0=AE=B1=E0=AE=95=E0=AF=81=E0=AE=95=E0=AE=B3=E0=AF=8D" f= ace bold) and in both >> cases, the text is shaped properly. I'm not sure where the problem is >> anymore. I attached screenshots of the same as well. > > Strange. I guess the only way of investigating this is to step with > GDB into the code which renders the mode line, and see which font > specifically is being used there? > I suppose so but I'm confident that "Noto Serif Tamil" is the font used in the modeline. The only other Tamil font I have installed is "Noto Sans Tamil" and I can easily make out the difference between the two. Font selection does not seem to be the problem, at least. In either case, I think I can only get to this in two weeks. And is the information in etc/DEBUG all I need (except the breakpoint which will be provided?)? > Btw, do I understand correctly that the problem you see is the > incorrect location of the dot-like diacriticals above the letters? Or > is the problem something else? (I don't read the Tamil script.) You're right. In the OP, even simple combinations like =E0=AE=95 + =E0=AF= =8D is not rendered right: the dot should be on top of =E0=AE=95 but in the buffer nam= e, it is next to it. However, Emacs seems to have no problem shaping =E0=AE=95 += =E0=AE=BF. The grossest of all is =E0=AE=95 + =E0=AF=81 where the combined letter shou= ld be =E0=AE=95 plus some kind of arc that surrounds the letter i.e., =E0=AE=95=E0=AF=81 (hopefu= lly Emacs renders this fine on your end, if not, I guess I could write it down on paper and send a picture). I really hope the above explains the problems with shaping.