From aprilop at freenet.de  Sun May  1 10:40:04 2022
From: aprilop at freenet.de (Andreas Prilop)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:40:04 +0000
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
Message-ID: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>

I cannot get Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf U+05BE to be displayed in
MS Windows font Lucida Sans Unicode. 

Sample text:  ?? ????????

Is this a known issue? 


Background: 

 https://jkorpela.fi/dashes.html  specifies
?font-family: Code2000, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode?. 
MS Windows users with Lucida Sans Unicode (comes with OS)
but without Code2000 and without Arial Unicode MS installed
will not get the maqaf.
You can see this best with menu ?Edit > Select all?.


From eliz at gnu.org  Sun May  1 10:45:31 2022
From: eliz at gnu.org (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 18:45:31 +0300
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de> (message from
 Andreas Prilop via Unicode on Sun, 01 May 2022 15:40:04 +0000)
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
Message-ID: <83o80h5k9w.fsf@gnu.org>

> Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:40:04 +0000
> From: Andreas Prilop via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
> 
> I cannot get Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf U+05BE to be displayed in
> MS Windows font Lucida Sans Unicode. 
> 
> Sample text:  ?? ????????
> 
> Is this a known issue? 

On what version of Windows?  I have no problem displaying that
character with Lucida Sans Unicode on Windows XPSP3, FWIW.

From doug at ewellic.org  Sun May  1 12:07:47 2022
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 11:07:47 -0600
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
Message-ID: <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org>

Andreas Prilop wrote:

> I cannot get Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf U+05BE to be displayed in MS Windows
> font Lucida Sans Unicode.
>
> Sample text:  ?? ????????
>
> Is this a known issue?
>
> Background:
>
> https://jkorpela.fi/dashes.html  specifies
> ?font-family: Code2000, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode?.
> MS Windows users with Lucida Sans Unicode (comes with OS) but without
> Code2000 and without Arial Unicode MS installed will not get the
> maqaf.
> You can see this best with menu ?Edit > Select all?.

Eli Zaretskii replied:

> On what version of Windows?  I have no problem displaying that
> character with Lucida Sans Unicode on Windows XPSP3, FWIW.

I don't see the maqaf with:

Windows 11 (10.0.22000.652)
Uniscribe 10.0.22000.1
Lucida Sans Unicode 5.01
BabelPad 14.0.0.2

and I do have both Code2000 and Arial Unicode MS installed.

I do see the maqaf if I artificially add a space (U+0020) after the second bet.

Lucida Sans Unicode version 5.01 is now 29 years old. I think it's unlikely we're going to see this issue addressed.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org




From eliz at gnu.org  Sun May  1 12:41:44 2022
From: eliz at gnu.org (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 20:41:44 +0300
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org> (message from Doug
 Ewell via Unicode on Sun, 1 May 2022 11:07:47 -0600)
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org>
Message-ID: <83ee1d5ew7.fsf@gnu.org>

> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 11:07:47 -0600
> From: Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
> 
> > On what version of Windows?  I have no problem displaying that
> > character with Lucida Sans Unicode on Windows XPSP3, FWIW.
> 
> I don't see the maqaf with:
> 
> Windows 11 (10.0.22000.652)
> Uniscribe 10.0.22000.1
> Lucida Sans Unicode 5.01
> BabelPad 14.0.0.2

Maybe this is the reason: I tried in Emacs, which uses HarfBuzz, not
Uniscribe.  Can you try with hb-view instead of BabelPad?

From jameskass at code2001.com  Sun May  1 13:12:20 2022
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:12:20 +0000
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <83ee1d5ew7.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org> <83ee1d5ew7.fsf@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <f7746ea4-57bd-1d6a-512d-996796c6f79e@code2001.com>



On 2022-05-01 5:41 PM, Eli Zaretskii via Unicode wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 11:07:47 -0600
>> From: Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
>>
>>> On what version of Windows?  I have no problem displaying that
>>> character with Lucida Sans Unicode on Windows XPSP3, FWIW.
>> I don't see the maqaf with:
>>
>> Windows 11 (10.0.22000.652)
>> Uniscribe 10.0.22000.1
>> Lucida Sans Unicode 5.01
>> BabelPad 14.0.0.2
> Maybe this is the reason: I tried in Emacs, which uses HarfBuzz, not
> Uniscribe.  Can you try with hb-view instead of BabelPad?
Lucida Sans Unicode selected in LibreOffice (which uses HarfBuzz) on 
Windows 7 does not display the maqaf in the sample text.? Neither does 
BabelPad using the Win7 Uniscribe.? But other fonts display the 
character in both applications/shaping engines.

From erwin.denissen at high-logic.com  Wed May  4 06:29:54 2022
From: erwin.denissen at high-logic.com (Erwin Denissen)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 13:29:54 +0200
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
Message-ID: <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>

Hi Andreas,

I have version 5.10 updated March 3, 2017.

maqaf-hebr is placed over bet-hebr (you see it when you use a large font 
size) as it is defined as mark in the font while it should be a base.

Best regards,

Erwin Denissen

High-Logic
http://www.high-logic.com/


On 01-May-22 5:40 PM, Andreas Prilop via Unicode wrote:
> I cannot get Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf U+05BE to be displayed in
> MS Windows font Lucida Sans Unicode.
> 
> Sample text:  ?? ????????
> 
> Is this a known issue?
> 
> 
> Background:
> 
>   https://jkorpela.fi/dashes.html  specifies
> ?font-family: Code2000, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode?.
> MS Windows users with Lucida Sans Unicode (comes with OS)
> but without Code2000 and without Arial Unicode MS installed
> will not get the maqaf.
> You can see this best with menu ?Edit > Select all?.
> 

From jukkakk at gmail.com  Wed May  4 12:12:12 2022
From: jukkakk at gmail.com (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 20:12:12 +0300
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>
Message-ID: <CAGHxYa7PCAZbF0Vq9dZsDCJkJ7FsJMitvH7Ow=FXPiow_KiWLw@mail.gmail.com>

Erwin Denissen via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org) kirjoitti:

>
> I have version 5.10 updated March 3, 2017.
>

I have version 5.01 of Lucida Sans Unicode, April 15, 1993; I?m not sure
whether the difference matters.

>
> maqaf-hebr is placed over bet-hebr (you see it when you use a large font
> size) as it is defined as mark in the font while it should be a base.
>

I tend to agree. Looking at U+05BE in Lucida Sans Unicode in the OTM Light
font inspector, I see ADW (advance width) as 0. This is of course a bug in
the font, and it causes the character to be overprinted on the preceding
character. When it is beth, you don?t really see it.

Yucca, http://jkorpela.fi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220504/b992d626/attachment.htm>

From erwin.denissen at high-logic.com  Wed May  4 16:36:31 2022
From: erwin.denissen at high-logic.com (Erwin Denissen)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 23:36:31 +0200
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <CAGHxYa7PCAZbF0Vq9dZsDCJkJ7FsJMitvH7Ow=FXPiow_KiWLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>
 <CAGHxYa7PCAZbF0Vq9dZsDCJkJ7FsJMitvH7Ow=FXPiow_KiWLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e331d078-3da8-51ea-a906-e2d3e6940042@high-logic.com>

 > I have version 5.01 of Lucida Sans Unicode, April 15, 1993; I?m not sure
 > whether the difference matters.

Sorry about the confusion; I also have 5.01.

 > I tend to agree. Looking at U+05BE in Lucida Sans Unicode in the OTM
 > Light font inspector, I see ADW (advance width) as 0. This is of course
 > a bug in the font, and it causes the character to be overprinted on the
 > preceding character. When it is beth, you don?t really see it.

Actually the AW is 862, but since the glyph is set as being a mark, it 
is forced to zero.

You can clearly see (and fix) this in a font editor.

Best regards,

Erwin Denissen

High-Logic
http://www.high-logic.com/


On 04-May-22 7:12 PM, Jukka K. Korpela via Unicode wrote:
> Erwin Denissen via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org 
> <mailto:unicode at corp.unicode.org>) kirjoitti:
> 
> 
>     I have version 5.10 updated March 3, 2017.
> 
> 
> I have version 5.01 of Lucida Sans Unicode, April 15, 1993; I?m not sure 
> whether the difference matters.
> 
> 
>     maqaf-hebr is placed over bet-hebr (you see it when you use a large
>     font
>     size) as it is defined as mark in the font while it should be a base.
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. Looking at U+05BE in Lucida Sans Unicode in the OTM 
> Light font inspector, I see ADW (advance width) as 0. This is of course 
> a bug in the font, and it causes the character to be overprinted on the 
> preceding character. When it is beth, you don?t really see it.
> 
> Yucca, http://jkorpela.fi <http://jkorpela.fi>
> 

From jameskass at code2001.com  Wed May  4 17:12:10 2022
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 22:12:10 +0000
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <e331d078-3da8-51ea-a906-e2d3e6940042@high-logic.com>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>
 <CAGHxYa7PCAZbF0Vq9dZsDCJkJ7FsJMitvH7Ow=FXPiow_KiWLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e331d078-3da8-51ea-a906-e2d3e6940042@high-logic.com>
Message-ID: <1f8c3a02-3817-ada4-928e-132468ddf77a@code2001.com>



On 2022-05-04 9:36 PM, Erwin Denissen via Unicode wrote:
> > I tend to agree. Looking at U+05BE in Lucida Sans Unicode in the OTM
> > Light font inspector, I see ADW (advance width) as 0. This is of course
> > a bug in the font, and it causes the character to be overprinted on the
> > preceding character. When it is beth, you don?t really see it.
>
> Actually the AW is 862, but since the glyph is set as being a mark, it 
> is forced to zero.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/gdef

To clarify, in OpenType parlance a "base glyph" is a single character 
spacing glyph.? A "mark glyph" is a non-spacing combining glyph.? So any 
spacing glyph which is orthographically considered a mark must be 
defined as a 'base glyph' in a font's GDEF table.


From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com  Thu May  5 01:53:31 2022
From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 07:53:31 +0100
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <1f8c3a02-3817-ada4-928e-132468ddf77a@code2001.com>
References: <DD18F2D1-E99C-4950-B805-8AA92E8952A2@freenet.de>
 <61c23082-670e-64ec-ea3e-71c965dae8e0@high-logic.com>
 <CAGHxYa7PCAZbF0Vq9dZsDCJkJ7FsJMitvH7Ow=FXPiow_KiWLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e331d078-3da8-51ea-a906-e2d3e6940042@high-logic.com>
 <1f8c3a02-3817-ada4-928e-132468ddf77a@code2001.com>
Message-ID: <20220505075331.6e9d0ccf@JRWUBU2>

On Wed, 4 May 2022 22:12:10 +0000
James Kass via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/gdef
> 
> To clarify, in OpenType parlance a "base glyph" is a single character 
> spacing glyph.? A "mark glyph" is a non-spacing combining glyph.? So
> any spacing glyph which is orthographically considered a mark must be 
> defined as a 'base glyph' in a font's GDEF table.

Not necessarily.

Firstly, whether or not mark glyphs' advance widths are set to zero
depends on the rendering engine for the script.  For a new font it is
most portable over time, application and OS to explicitly set the
advance with to zero for mark glyphs. 

Secondly, an advance width may be set by the GPOS table - the dist
feature is the recommended location for this.  A spacing mark may be
classified as a mark glyph to facilitate glyph substitutions and then
have its real advance width set by the dist feature.  There is or was a
difference in the Microsoft and HarfBuzz interpretation and one had to
be careful with the sequencing of the lookups in GPOS to get the same
effect.  Unfortunately, I can't find the documentation of this.

Richard.



From harjitmoe at outlook.com  Fri May  6 09:03:18 2022
From: harjitmoe at outlook.com (Harriet Riddle)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 15:03:18 +0100
Subject: Fwd: Errors in APL-ISO-IR-68.TXT
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB5712967BE0F3FF1D22ACC276B7FB9@VI1PR07MB5712.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <c711feb5-c52d-af8c-1177-03243e0e182e@outlook.com>
 <VI1PR07MB5712967BE0F3FF1D22ACC276B7FB9@VI1PR07MB5712.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <VI1PR07MB571267B7C73DC31A28287B92B7C59@VI1PR07MB5712.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Further errors in the same file:

0x2A084C/0x4C082A are mapped to both U+2338 and U+236F; U+2338 should be 
0x25084C/0x4C0825.

0x46084B/0x4B0846 are mapped to both U+2357 and U+2358; U+2357 should be 
0x4C0855/0x55084C.

--Har.

Harriet Riddle via Unicode wrote:
> Re-sending this since I inadvertently sent it to the bounces address.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Errors in APL-ISO-IR-68.TXT
> Date: 	Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:48:58 +0100
> From: 	Harriet Riddle <harjitmoe at outlook.com>
> To: 	Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org>
>
>
>
> Two of the lines in APL-ISO-IR-68.TXT ( 
> https://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/MISC/APL-ISO-IR-68.TXT 
> ) read as follows:
>
> 0x5A085F??? 0x233E??? #??? APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL CIRCLE JOT
>
> and:
>
> 0x5F085A??? 0x233E??? #??? APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL CIRCLE JOT
>
> 0x5A is a left shoe (U+2282 ? SUBSET OF) and 0x5F is a minus sign 
> (mapped in this file to 0x002D HYPHEN-MINUS).? While a ISO-IR-68 
> backspace (0x08) composition of these two could theoretically compose 
> some form of element-of sign, the APL "epsilon" or element-of sign is 
> an atomic glyph at 0x45 (mapped here to 0x220A ? SMALL ELEMENT OF), so 
> these two sequences are probably unused in reality.? In any case, they 
> do not correspond to U+233E ? APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL CIRCLE JOT which 
> is, as the name suggests, the composition of the circle (0x25CB ? 
> WHITE CIRCLE, 0x4F in ISO-IR-68) and the jot (0x2218 ? RING OPERATOR, 
> 0x4A in ISO-IR-68).
>
> The mappings should probably be amended to:
>
> 0x4A084F??? 0x233E??? #??? APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL CIRCLE JOT
>
> and:
>
> 0x4F084A??? 0x233E??? #??? APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL CIRCLE JOT
>
> ?Har.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220506/e29429b3/attachment.htm>

From doug at ewellic.org  Tue May 10 12:41:58 2022
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:41:58 -0600
Subject: Errors in APL-ISO-IR-68.TXT
Message-ID: <000001d86495$3fe35f40$bfaa1dc0$@ewellic.org>

Harriet Riddle wrote:

> Further errors in the same file: [...]

I noticed there have been no responses to Harriet's two posts on this.

If no one disputes the corrections she has proposed, I suggest preparing an updated mapping file and submitting it to UTC.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org




From mhd at yv.org  Sat May 14 00:06:11 2022
From: mhd at yv.org (Mark H. David)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:06:11 -0400
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org>
References: <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org>
Message-ID: <F8CB2D27-F71B-4625-BCDB-D8787BE8B2D1@yv.org>

What, bugs cannot be fixed in fonts of a certain age? 

> On May 1, 2022, at 1:15 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> Lucida Sans Unicode version 5.01 is now 29 years old. I think it's unlikely we're going to see this issue addressed.



From jameskass at code2001.com  Sat May 14 04:15:07 2022
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:15:07 +0000
Subject: Lucida Sans Unicode & Hebrew Hyphen Maqaf
In-Reply-To: <F8CB2D27-F71B-4625-BCDB-D8787BE8B2D1@yv.org>
References: <000001d85d7d$fbbb4940$f331dbc0$@ewellic.org>
 <F8CB2D27-F71B-4625-BCDB-D8787BE8B2D1@yv.org>
Message-ID: <1d480025-52bd-1ddc-0991-cef652ed8994@code2001.com>


According to the Wikipedia article on Lucida Sans Unicode, there are a 
couple of other well known bugs.? U+0332 and U+0333 both have display 
issues.? (V? V?)

Apparently there have been no updates for this popular font since 1993, 
so Doug seems correct about the unlikelihood of these issues being 
addressed.? Of course, stranger things have happened...

On 2022-05-14 5:06 AM, Mark H. David via Unicode wrote:
> What, bugs cannot be fixed in fonts of a certain age?
>
>> On May 1, 2022, at 1:15 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
>>
>> Lucida Sans Unicode version 5.01 is now 29 years old. I think it's unlikely we're going to see this issue addressed.
>