Bug 206001
| Summary: | [si_LK][Glyphs] shape for characters (glyphs) are wrong | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | A S Alam <aalam> | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Component: | lklug-fonts | Assignee: | Parag Nemade <pnemade> | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Priority: | high | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | b.rahul.pm, danishka, eng-i18n-bugs, harshula, i18n-bugs, mshao, petersen, pnemade, psatpute | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | i18n, Reopened | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | lklug-fonts-0.6-1.20090803cvs.fc12 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-08-07 07:05:15 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||||||||||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 208066, 209572 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Description
A S Alam
2006-09-11 13:33:46 UTC
Created attachment 135987 [details]
Wrong Image
Created attachment 135988 [details]
Correct image
Created attachment 135992 [details]
Wrong Image
Rahul, Could you please let me knoe what is the priority of this Bug? A, B or C? This is priority B bug. Created attachment 142264 [details]
Final Fixed font file to this bug
Created attachment 143594 [details]
Fixed Font file
This Fix has been tested in its clone RHEL BUG 209752. This Fix is included now in fonts-sinhala-0.2.2-1.fc6 rpm working on RHEL 5.1 Created attachment 354436 [details]
Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA)
Created attachment 354437 [details]
Miyanna (U+0DB8,U+0DD2)
Hi, I recently noticed that Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA) on Fedora 11 looks incorrect: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=142050 It looks like a Mayanna (U+0DB8) which has been compressed vertically and then an is-pilla (U+0DD2) placed on it. The particular is-pilla glyph that has been used is meant only for glyphs without an ascender. Furthermore, due to this change Al-Mayanna now looks inconsistent with the Al (Virama) form of all the other letters that contain an ascender. My view is that Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA) looked *more* correct before this change. i.e. This change causes a regression. Furthermore, I think these are all valid Al-Mayanna glyphs: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=135992 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=135988 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354436 Whereas, this is a Miyanna: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354437 I think the difference between the Al-Mayanna and Miyanna is the sharp point at the top left corner of the Al-Mayanna. I will double check on this. It would appear that Bug 209572 contains most of the discussion regarding this particular bug. My recommendation is to revert back to the previous Al-Mayanna glyph. cya, # Created attachment 354651 [details] showing all combination involved in bug hi harshula, i think whatever we have presently is correct? i.e style of showing cap on MAYANNA is same, sharp edge is present also danishka has also added Comment #12 that all thing are ok and same thing is available from fc6 do you want it to revert back as it was previously previously? Hi Pravin, I've added Danishka to the CC list. Hi Danishka, Can you please have a look at ම් (Al-Mayanna) on Fedora. Do you think that looks correct? Have a look at ච්, ට්, ඩ්, ඬ්, බ්, ම්, ඹ්, ව්, which one do you think looks out of place? In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=206001#c12 you say "working on RHEL 5.1". It clearly looks incorrect. The Mayanna has been compressed vertically and an Is-Pilla glyph placed on top. cya, # Hi Harshula, Right now i am not on RHEL ම් (Al-Mayanna) is fine for me on Fedora 11 but i want to double check " ච්, ට්, ඩ්, ඬ්, බ්, ඹ්, ව්" with a language expert. cya. Hi Danishka, 1) Can you please describe what is wrong with the original Al-Mayanna: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=135992 2) Can you please describe any problems with this Al-Mayanna: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354436 cya, # Created attachment 354818 [details]
Pure consonants (Al letters) containing an ascender
(In reply to comment #16) > Created an attachment (id=354651) [details] > showing all combination involved in bug > > hi harshula, > > i think whatever we have presently is correct? i.e style of showing cap on > MAYANNA is same, sharp edge is present > > also danishka has also added Comment #12 that all thing are ok and same thing > is available from fc6 > > do you want it to revert back as it was previously previously? Hi Pravin, I agree with Harshula. Yes we need to revert al-mayanna pls note, it is hard to find the difference between ව and ව් . we need to modify "ච්, ට්, ඩ්, ඬ්, බ්, ඹ්, ව්" near future. Fixed in lklug-fonts-0.6-1.20090803cvs.fc12 |