Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 206001
[si_LK][Glyphs] shape for characters (glyphs) are wrong
Last modified: 2013-07-02 20:40:44 EDT
Description of problem:
Shape for character combination is wrong with following unicode
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
2. type with Raw unicode
Created attachment 135987 [details]
Created attachment 135988 [details]
Created attachment 135992 [details]
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]
Created attachment 354437 [details]
I recently noticed that Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA) on Fedora 11 looks incorrect:
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:
Whereas, this is a Miyanna:
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.
Created attachment 354651 [details]
showing all combination involved in bug
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?
I've added Danishka to the CC list.
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.
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.
1) Can you please describe what is wrong with the original Al-Mayanna:
2) Can you please describe any problems with this Al-Mayanna:
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?
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