From samjnaa at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 12:23:46 2011 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:53:46 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= Message-ID: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> Hello. I use the Devanagari script heavily as I am a Sanskrit scholar. So I'm using Lohit Devanagari 2.4.5 on Kubuntu Natty. (I was disappointed that Kubuntu doesn't ship the latest Lohit fonts so I deleted all Lohit fonts installed by default and manually installed the latest.) I also use Lohit fonts on the occasions when I have to go to Windows XP. I however find that the syllable ???? is not being displayed properly. Please see the attachment. The ordinary left-hand glyph of ? is being substituted by the extra long glyph -- possibly under the presumption that ??? contains a conjoining form which would come to extra width. However, since ??? is handled as a single ligature of normal width, this substitution should not occur. Please look into this. Thanks! -- Shriramana Sharma -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: screenshot.1.png Type: image/png Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From psatpute at redhat.com Fri Jul 15 07:19:54 2011 From: psatpute at redhat.com (Pravin Satpute) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:49:54 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E1FEA1A.2090100@redhat.com> On Thursday 14 July 2011 05:53 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Hello. I use the Devanagari script heavily as I am a Sanskrit scholar. > So I'm using Lohit Devanagari 2.4.5 on Kubuntu Natty. (I was > disappointed that Kubuntu doesn't ship the latest Lohit fonts so I > deleted all Lohit fonts installed by default and manually installed > the latest.) I also use Lohit fonts on the occasions when I have to go > to Windows XP. > > I however find that the syllable ???? is not being displayed properly. > Please see the attachment. The ordinary left-hand glyph of ? is being > substituted by the extra long glyph -- possibly under the presumption > that ??? contains a conjoining form which would come to extra width. > However, since ??? is handled as a single ligature of normal width, > this substitution should not occur. Yes, this is problem, I will fix this soon. Regards, Pravin S From bmassot at free.fr Sat Jul 16 18:37:01 2011 From: bmassot at free.fr (Bernard Massot) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:37:01 +0200 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:53:46PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > I however find that the syllable ???? is not being displayed > properly. Please see the attachment. The ordinary left-hand glyph of > ? is being substituted by the extra long glyph -- possibly under the > presumption that ??? contains a conjoining form which would come to > extra width. However, since ??? is handled as a single ligature of > normal width, this substitution should not occur. I tried to fix this problem using FontForge. However I encountered strange things I'd be glad to be explained. According to FF's lookups view, none of the Contextual Chaining Substitution lookups, enabled by the Pre Base Substitution feature, contains the u091E_u094D.half_u091C.pres glyph in their Lookahead coverage tables. And in the metrics window I can obtain the substitution of u093F with glyph206 by enabling a feature whose name is... empty! -- Bernard Massot From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 07:00:47 2011 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (pravin.d.s at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:30:47 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> Message-ID: 2011/7/17 Bernard Massot > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:53:46PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > > I however find that the syllable ???? is not being displayed > > properly. Please see the attachment. The ordinary left-hand glyph of > > ? is being substituted by the extra long glyph -- possibly under the > > presumption that ??? contains a conjoining form which would come to > > extra width. However, since ??? is handled as a single ligature of > > normal width, this substitution should not occur. > I tried to fix this problem using FontForge. However I encountered > strange things I'd be glad to be explained. > According to FF's lookups view, none of the Contextual Chaining > Substitution lookups, enabled by the Pre Base Substitution feature, > contains the u091E_u094D.half_u091C.pres glyph in their Lookahead > coverage tables. > And in the metrics window I can obtain the substitution of u093F with > glyph206 by enabling a feature whose name is... empty! > We have to stop or change signle substitution lookup getting executed for this combination. - Pravin S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From psatpute at redhat.com Tue Jul 19 11:13:10 2011 From: psatpute at redhat.com (Pravin Satpute) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:43:10 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <4E1FEA1A.2090100@redhat.com> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <4E1FEA1A.2090100@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E2566C6.2020408@redhat.com> On Friday 15 July 2011 12:49 PM, Pravin Satpute wrote: > On Thursday 14 July 2011 05:53 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote: >> Hello. I use the Devanagari script heavily as I am a Sanskrit >> scholar. So I'm using Lohit Devanagari 2.4.5 on Kubuntu Natty. (I was >> disappointed that Kubuntu doesn't ship the latest Lohit fonts so I >> deleted all Lohit fonts installed by default and manually installed >> the latest.) I also use Lohit fonts on the occasions when I have to >> go to Windows XP. >> >> I however find that the syllable ???? is not being displayed properly. >> Please see the attachment. The ordinary left-hand glyph of ? is being >> substituted by the extra long glyph -- possibly under the presumption >> that ??? contains a conjoining form which would come to extra width. >> However, since ??? is handled as a single ligature of normal width, >> this substitution should not occur. > > Yes, this is problem, I will fix this soon. > Resolved see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722382 Regards, Pravin S From samjnaa at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 11:50:50 2011 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:20:50 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <4E2566C6.2020408@redhat.com> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <4E1FEA1A.2090100@redhat.com> <4E2566C6.2020408@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E256F9A.7040209@gmail.com> On 07/19/2011 04:43 PM, Pravin Satpute wrote: >> > Resolved > see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722382 Thanks for the quick work! Can you please advise on where the revised font may be immediately downloaded? -- Shriramana Sharma From samjnaa at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 12:08:14 2011 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:38:14 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL Message-ID: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> Hello. I realize this is *slightly* OT for this list as it doesn't directly concern Lohit fonts, but I hope it's OK here since you people have experience in publishing fonts under the GPL. Please maintain the CC to my friend Anshuman Pandey who is not on this list. We are working on a font for an ancient Indic script and intend to release it under the GPL. So far work on the font has been done using Metafont but obviously a TTF is needed for wider usage with WYSIWYG editors like LibreOffice. However we feel that the Metafont sources aren't so "clean" and contain many idiosyncrasies of the author so are not so great for immediate publication. But we would like to publish the TTF. Isn't releasing a font as a TTF sufficient for placing it under the GPL? I mean, a TTF font can be directly edited without much trouble unlike compiled C-code, right? BTW another question: while GPL/OFL permit commercial usage of the font and we are fine by that, would it be possible for us to request/require being credited in such a publication using the font? -- Shriramana Sharma From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 13:17:17 2011 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (pravin.d.s at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:47:17 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <4E256F9A.7040209@gmail.com> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <4E1FEA1A.2090100@redhat.com> <4E2566C6.2020408@redhat.com> <4E256F9A.7040209@gmail.com> Message-ID: 2011/7/19 Shriramana Sharma > On 07/19/2011 04:43 PM, Pravin Satpute wrote: > >> >>> Resolved >> see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/**show_bug.cgi?id=722382 >> > > Thanks for the quick work! Can you please advise on where the revised font > may be immediately downloaded? > https://fedorahosted.org/lohit/browser/trunk/devanagari Regards, Pravin S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 04:52:04 2011 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (pravin.d.s at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:22:04 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL In-Reply-To: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> References: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 July 2011 17:38, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Hello. I realize this is *slightly* OT for this list as it doesn't directly > concern Lohit fonts, but I hope it's OK here since you people have > experience in publishing fonts under the GPL. Please maintain the CC to my > friend Anshuman Pandey who is not on this list. > > We are working on a font for an ancient Indic script and intend to release > it under the GPL. So far work on the font has been done using Metafont but > obviously a TTF is needed for wider usage with WYSIWYG editors like > LibreOffice. > > However we feel that the Metafont sources aren't so "clean" and contain > many idiosyncrasies of the author so are not so great for immediate > publication. But we would like to publish the TTF. > > Isn't releasing a font as a TTF sufficient for placing it under the GPL? I > mean, a TTF font can be directly edited without much trouble unlike compiled > C-code, right? > Nope ttf is binary file. for GPL one required source so one can provide patches and updates. GPL itself says " This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. " So i think it better to release source as it is, it will not harm anything. Second options i think 1) Edit .ttf file, save it as .sfd 2) generate ttf from saved .sfd and 3) If you are getting expected .ttf from step two, Release .ttf (binary) generated in step two with .sfd (source) with LICENSE and README > BTW another question: while GPL/OFL permit commercial usage of the font and > we are fine by that, would it be possible for us to request/require being > credited in such a publication using the font? > Added Tom in cc, he can give you exact suggestion. Regards, Pravin S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 10:11:44 2011 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (pravin.d.s at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:41:44 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL In-Reply-To: <4E269C5C.6050607@gmail.com> References: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> <4E269C5C.6050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 July 2011 14:44, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > On 07/20/2011 10:22 AM, pravin.d.s at gmail.com wrote: > >> So i think it better to release source as it is, it will not harm >> anything. >> >> Second options i think >> 1) Edit .ttf file, save it as .sfd >> 2) generate ttf from saved .sfd >> > > Hello -- while I understand that point about no promises being made for > fitness for a particular purpose, the above instructions you give for > pseudo-producing an SFD form (which is considered to be a "source" form) > from the TTF form (which is considered to be a "compiled" form) themselves > clearly indicate that the so-called sources distinct from the TTF are easily > produceable by available tools. Maybe one can compare this to WAV versus > FLAC -- the former is easily produceable from the latter ergo distributing > material as the latter alone should not be in conflict with the GPL. > You missed 3rd point "if" 3) *If* you are getting expected .ttf from step two, Release .ttf (binary) generated in step two with .sfd (source) with LICENSE and README Please try it. > > Given this, what is the point in creating faux-sources from the TTF file, > and why can't distributing the TTF alone be considered GPL-compliant? > TTF is binary file, try to edit in gedit or openoffice Try same with .sfd file, you will understand the difference. - Pravin S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From samjnaa at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 09:14:04 2011 From: samjnaa at gmail.com (Shriramana Sharma) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:44:04 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL In-Reply-To: References: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E269C5C.6050607@gmail.com> On 07/20/2011 10:22 AM, pravin.d.s at gmail.com wrote: > So i think it better to release source as it is, it will not harm anything. > > Second options i think > 1) Edit .ttf file, save it as .sfd > 2) generate ttf from saved .sfd Hello -- while I understand that point about no promises being made for fitness for a particular purpose, the above instructions you give for pseudo-producing an SFD form (which is considered to be a "source" form) from the TTF form (which is considered to be a "compiled" form) themselves clearly indicate that the so-called sources distinct from the TTF are easily produceable by available tools. Maybe one can compare this to WAV versus FLAC -- the former is easily produceable from the latter ergo distributing material as the latter alone should not be in conflict with the GPL. Given this, what is the point in creating faux-sources from the TTF file, and why can't distributing the TTF alone be considered GPL-compliant? -- Shriramana Sharma From bmassot at free.fr Wed Jul 20 19:46:02 2011 From: bmassot at free.fr (Bernard Massot) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:46:02 +0200 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> Message-ID: <20110720194602.GD3336@massot.ath.cx> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Bernard Massot wrote: > And in the metrics window I can obtain the substitution of u093F with > glyph206 by enabling a feature whose name is... empty! I think I understood that one. In the .sfd file, lookup "Single Substitution in Devanagari lookup 80" is associated with script/language couples but these couples don't come with a feature. In TrueType format you can't associate a script/language couple directly with a lookup. You have to associate it with features. So what FF does to build a legal .ttf file with this awkward lookup definition is creating a feature with an empty name (actually name is " " - 4 spaces - since TT feature names have to be exactly 4 characters long). I'm not sure whether this behavior should be considered a bug or a feature. I believe this lookup should be rebuilt without any associated script/language couple in the .sfd file, just as other Lohit Devanagari Single Substitution lookups. -- Bernard Massot From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 03:13:18 2011 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (pravin.d.s at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:43:18 +0530 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: <20110720194602.GD3336@massot.ath.cx> References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> <20110720194602.GD3336@massot.ath.cx> Message-ID: 2011/7/21 Bernard Massot > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Bernard Massot wrote: > > And in the metrics window I can obtain the substitution of u093F with > > glyph206 by enabling a feature whose name is... empty! > I think I understood that one. In the .sfd file, lookup "Single > Substitution in Devanagari lookup 80" is associated with script/language > couples but these couples don't come with a feature. > In TrueType format you can't associate a script/language couple directly > with a lookup. You have to associate it with features. So what FF does > to build a legal .ttf file with this awkward lookup definition is > creating a feature with an empty name (actually name is " " - 4 > spaces - since TT feature names have to be exactly 4 characters long). > I'm not sure whether this behavior should be considered a bug or a > feature. > > I believe this lookup should be rebuilt without any associated > script/language couple in the .sfd file, just as other Lohit Devanagari > Single Substitution lookups. > Few Single Substitution lookups get processed only when certain conditions satisfied in associated tagged Contextual chaining substitution lookup, that why it does not required any tag, script, thing in it else it will directly get triggered by Rendering engine. Can you provide patch for particular point you are mentioning? will be easier to identify. Thanks, Pravin S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmassot at free.fr Thu Jul 21 20:51:40 2011 From: bmassot at free.fr (Bernard Massot) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] =?utf-8?q?Lohit_Devanagari_not_displaying_?= =?utf-8?b?4KSe4KWN4KSc4KS/IHByb3Blcmx5?= In-Reply-To: References: <4E1EDFD2.7010009@gmail.com> <20110716183701.GA3336@massot.ath.cx> <20110720194602.GD3336@massot.ath.cx> Message-ID: <20110721205140.GF3336@massot.ath.cx> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:43:18AM +0530, pravin.d.s at gmail.com wrote: > Few Single Substitution lookups get processed only when certain conditions > satisfied in associated tagged Contextual chaining substitution lookup, that > why it does not required any tag, script, thing in it else it will directly > get triggered by Rendering engine. I know that. Problem is precisely that Lohit Devanagari currently has such a lookup, which, instead of being associated with no script/language/feature, is associated with script/language but no feature. And that's what is causing the bug. > Can you provide patch for particular point you are mentioning? will be > easier to identify. Here you go. I re-generated TT font and it confirmed this patch is right : empty feature is gone. -- Bernard Massot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: removing_empty_feature.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 2039 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bmassot at free.fr Thu Jul 21 21:19:34 2011 From: bmassot at free.fr (Bernard Massot) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:19:34 +0200 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL In-Reply-To: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110721211934.GG3336@massot.ath.cx> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:38:14PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > BTW another question: while GPL/OFL permit commercial usage of the > font and we are fine by that, would it be possible for us to > request/require being credited in such a publication using the font? I think you can use the GPL or OFL license as a basis and just add a paragraph about the restriction you want to apply. I believe this restriction wouldn't make your license a non-free license. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException as both a good point to note if you want to you use GPL and an example of how to extend GPL. On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:22:04AM +0530, pravin.d.s at gmail.com wrote: > On 19 July 2011 17:38, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > > Isn't releasing a font as a TTF sufficient for placing it under the GPL? I > > mean, a TTF font can be directly edited without much trouble unlike compiled > > C-code, right? > > Nope ttf is binary file. for GPL one required source so one can provide > patches and updates. TTF is binary as in "non-plain text", not binary as in "compiled version of a source code". Here binary format is only used for efficiency reasons. TTF format gives you access to full useful information. It *is* a native/source format. It is nowhere "obfuscated" as object code of an executable binary. I agree with Shriramana that generating a .sfd file from .tff just for the sake of getting a plain text document containing exactly the same information wouldn't make much sense. -- Bernard Massot From dave at lab6.com Fri Jul 22 02:20:31 2011 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:20:31 -0300 Subject: [Lohit-devel-list] ~OT: Publishing a font under the GPL In-Reply-To: <20110721211934.GG3336@massot.ath.cx> References: <4E2573AE.1050803@gmail.com> <20110721211934.GG3336@massot.ath.cx> Message-ID: Hi. IANAL but I spent a lot of time with libre font licenses :) You can't REQUIRE anything; the GPL says others can ignore any additional requirements, and the OFL says it invalidates the license (I think) The GPL for fonts is tricky because its unclear what the 'preferred form of modification' means in practice. I suggest using the SIL OFL. The benefits of a particular form of modification don't outweigh the complexity, or the inability to mix with the large OFL pool - network effects are powerful and important in my opinion :) Cheers Dave On 21 July 2011 18:19, Bernard Massot wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:38:14PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: >> BTW another question: while GPL/OFL permit commercial usage of the >> font and we are fine by that, would it be possible for us to >> request/require being credited in such a publication using the font? > I think you can use the GPL or OFL license as a basis and just add a > paragraph about the restriction you want to apply. I believe this > restriction wouldn't make your license a non-free license. > See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException as both a > good point to note if you want to you use GPL and an example of how to > extend GPL. > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:22:04AM +0530, pravin.d.s at gmail.com wrote: >> On 19 July 2011 17:38, Shriramana Sharma wrote: >> > Isn't releasing a font as a TTF sufficient for placing it under the GPL? I >> > mean, a TTF font can be directly edited without much trouble unlike compiled >> > C-code, right? >> >> Nope ttf is binary file. for GPL one required source so one can provide >> patches and updates. > TTF is binary as in "non-plain text", not binary as in "compiled version > of a source code". Here binary format is only used for efficiency > reasons. TTF format gives you access to full useful information. It *is* > a native/source format. It is nowhere "obfuscated" as object code of an > executable binary. > I agree with Shriramana that generating a .sfd file from .tff just for > the sake of getting a plain text document containing exactly the same > information wouldn't make much sense. > -- > Bernard Massot > > _______________________________________________ > Lohit-devel-list mailing list > Lohit-devel-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/lohit-devel-list > -- Cheers Dave (Please note, this email is my personal opinion and does not represent the views of any of my consulting clients.)