FontLab Forum
2012-02-09, 04:51:14 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the FontLab forum, read how to use it! Update: Archives from old MSN forums are now available on our forum.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Downloads Tags Login Register  
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Some lookups work in the Proofing Tool but not in the font  (Read 1805 times)
Pere
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +1/-0
Spain Spain

Posts: 13


Email
« on: 2010-08-24, 07:53:14 »

I have designed a Hebrew font with special upper (Babylonian) vowels with vowel (Mark) Substitutions according to the context, Mark to Base character Positionings and Mark to Mark Positionings. There are no problems when compiling and everything works fine in the Proofing Tool. But after generating the font only Mark to Base Positionings work. Substitutions and Mark to Mark Positionings do not work.

I have made a lot of tests, and I have seen that the same thing happens if I modfy the Times New Roman font and create a substitution such as a -> e # x | . In the Proofing Tool I write xa and i get xe but this does not work in the generated font.

The features I have used are:
a) For substitutions: Isolated Forms <isol>
b) For Mark to Mark Positioning:  Mark to Mark Positioning <mkmk>
Script: Hebrew <hebr>. Language: Default <dflt>

Maybe Uniscribe does not allow to make such kind of modifications in the font?

I would be very grateful and happy if anybody could help me. I have worked hard and long in the font and it would be fantastic if anything worked as in the Proofing Tools.
Logged
BobH
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +0/-0
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 18



« Reply #1 on: 2010-08-27, 09:13:08 »

> But after generating the font only Mark to Base Positionings work. Substitutions and Mark to Mark Positionings do not work.

It would help if you say exactly what operating system and applications you are using to test the Mark-to-Mark Positionings.  It would also help to identify exactly what characters (starting with Unicode codepoint numbers) are involved in the rule that is not working.

Bob
Logged
tiro_hudson
Beta: FontLab Studio Win
Hero Member
***

Karma: +8/-0
Canada Canada

Posts: 85


WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: 2010-08-30, 14:10:17 »

As Bob notes, it would be helpful to know what character encoding your are using for the Babylonian marks (since these are not yet included in Unicode). There is likely an issue with Hebrew shaping engines not knowing what layout features to apply and possibly not even recognising the characters as Hebrew.
Logged
tiro_hudson
Beta: FontLab Studio Win
Hero Member
***

Karma: +8/-0
Canada Canada

Posts: 85


WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: 2010-08-30, 14:12:45 »

The <isol> layout feature is not applied as part of the standard Hebrew layout, I think. Can you give an example of the kinds of substitutions you need to perform, so we can advise on a more appropriate layout feature? I suspect the <ccmp> feature would be best, with the caveat that this is applied before any other layout features, so you need to make sure that any contextual rules in <ccmp> are not reliant on later shaping.
Logged
Pere
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +1/-0
Spain Spain

Posts: 13


Email
« Reply #4 on: 2010-08-31, 08:25:04 »

Thank you very much, Bob and John, for your willingness to help. And sorry for replying so late: I had not noticed that Bob had answered to my post some days ago (I didn’t receive any automatic message from the forum as I thought I had requested) and afterwards I wanted to test nearly any possible combination in order not to make you work vainly.

I work with Windows XP SP3 and Microsoft Word 2003 with every automatic format disabled. If something doesn’t work in Microsoft Word, I try with WordPad, in order to be sure there is not a problem with automatic format or automatic corrections of Microsoft Word.

Mark to Mark Positioning

I have verified that I have problems with the following codepoints:

U+05BC (Tiberian dagesh/mapiq). I had deleted all Unicode composite characters of consonant + dagesh/mapiq from the font (U+FB2C to FB4A). If not, Uniscribe (or I do not know who) replaces any consonant followed by dagesh or mapiq with the respective composite characters. I use it as Babylonian dagesh 1. The Mark to Mark Position of this character does not work when I type it after any vowel. Moreover, if I type it after the vowels I have placed on the reserved codepoints U+05C6 and U+05C8 to U+05CF, the dagesh appears after the vowel (on the dotted circle U+05CC).

U+05BF (Tiberian rafe). Same problems as with previous character.

U+05C6 and 05C8 to 05CF (curiously, no problem with U+05C7, also a reserved codepoint). I have placed on this codepoints some vowels since there are more vowels in the Babylonian vocalization than in the Tiberian vocalization. In addition to the problem I explain above, the Mark to Mark Positioning does not work to place any cantillation mark after these codepoints (vowels). Moreover, in some cases the cantillation mark appears after the vowel (on the dotted circle U+05CC).

Could I place all these problematic characters (dagesh, rafe, some vowels) on the codepoints for cantillation marks that are still free in my font? Or should I use PUA codepoints?

The last solution seems to me not possible. I have placed some vowels on codepoints U+F020 to U+F025. In these cases, the vowel does not appear as a mark on the consonant but after the consonant! (using the font; it appears perfect with the Volt Proofing Tool!).

Substitutions

Should the substitution xa > xe as explained in my previous message not work in the modified TNR font?

As for the Hebrew substitutions, of course I apply first the substitutions and afterwards the positioning.

Since some Babylonian vowels are very wide, I want to replace them automatically with narrower glyphs when typed after narrow vowels. So I want that the codepoints (wide  vowels) U+05B7, U+05B8, U+05BD, U+05C8, U+05CB and U+05B6 be replaced respectively with the codepoints (narrow glyphs of the same vowels, on the PUA range) U+F020, U+F021, U+F022, U+F023, U+F024 and U+F025, when typed after a narrow consonant (gimel, vav, zayin, yod, nun, final nun) and also after a lamed (since there is a small space upon the lamed).

As John suggested, I have tried the feature <ccmp> instead of <isol>, but the result was the same: there is substitution in the Profing Tool but not in the real font.
Logged
Tags: Proofing Tool  Mark to Mark Positioning  Substitutions  Uniscribe 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!