"Combining dot above" rendered incorrectly in transcriptions

[blms]

testing notes

Review the second transcription (by Goitein and Friedman) on PGPID 9083 linked below and check if the combining dot renders correctly. Recommend testing in multiple browsers, since before we saw different behavior on this with different browsers.

---

Unicode Character “◌̇” (U+0307) Combining Dot Above is missing from Frank Ruhl 1924 MF, so it does not render correctly in transcriptions.

Example: https://geniza.princeton.edu/en/documents/9083/

[blms]

Additional missing glyphs in Arabic: https://geniza.princeton.edu/en/documents/9140/

[blms]

Seems to behave differently on different browsers, and is not resolved by Unicode normalization. Another example: https://geniza.princeton.edu/en/documents/4767/

May be related to fallback font behavior. Noting some different results of testing with browser tools here:

Default (Frank Ruhl):

font-family: serif or font-family: Georgia (what I thought our fallback was already!)

font-family: 'Greta Sans Hebrew Regular'

font-family: Times New Roman

All tested on Chrome.

[kseniaryzhova]

@blms @rlskoeser combining dot is not rendering for me (PC, Chrome)

[kseniaryzhova]

@rlskoeser @blms It works partially (same transcription, test site)

[rlskoeser]

Maybe this is a Windows-specific rendering problem...

Here's current versions of the Goitein + Friedman transcription on PGPID 9083:

production

test

[richmanrachel]

@kseniaryzhova - is this still an issue for you on a PC? The Ju-Ar ones look fine to me on my Mac, but the Arabic one (https://geniza.princeton.edu/en/documents/9140/) is still showing a weird box.

[kseniaryzhova]

@richmanrachel @blms For me it's uneven, sometimes the combining dot works and sometimes it doesn't (this is from PGPID 9083)

I do get the empty squares for the Arabic script.

[blms]

@richmanrachel It's interesting; looking more closely at PGPID 9140, I think that might be an error in the transcription. If it is meant to be a combining dot above, it's using a different Unicode symbol for that than the others:  U+F0C2 rather than the typical ◌̇ U+0307 combining dot above. It's the only transcription on the site that uses that character.

@kseniaryzhova Sounds like it's still just a PC issue with the correct (U+0307) character. Maybe it will resolve itself with later Windows versions of browsers…

[richmanrachel]

@blms - Yes you are right. Here's the transcription editor view:

@kseniaryzhova - should I just ask Yusuf or Amel to fix this one? I'm not confident enough in the Arabic paleography to do it myself, but most of the lines I looked at it seems like the symbol is just a mistake and not even representing a letter. In the last line some double slashes might be needed for above the line insertion