Especial character 04 (uni066E.calt)

[Tarobish]

It has to be default for Arabic and style for the other scripts

uni066E.init uniFE91 uniFB5C uniFB54 uniFB58 uni067D.init uni067C.init uniFE97 uniFB60 uniFB68 uniFE9B uni0751.init uniFB64 uni0754.init uni0753.init uni0752.init uni0756.init uni08A0.init uni0755.init uni06B9.init uniFEE7 uni06BC.init uniFEF3 uni08A9.init uni06CE.init uniFE8B uni063E.init uniFBFE uni063D.init uni0776.init uni0775.init uni063F.init uniFBE6 uni0620.init uni0777.init uni077A.init uni077B.init uni0767.init uni0769.init + uni069A.fina uniFEB4 uniFEB2 uniFEB6 uni069C.medi uni069C.fina uni069B.medi uni069B.fina uni069A.medi uni06FA.medi uni06FA.fina uniFEB8 uni075C.medi uni075C.fina uni0770.medi uni0770.fina uni076D.medi uni076D.fina uni077E.medi uni077E.fina uni077D.medi uni077D.fina + What ever we have in Ligatures uniFD17 uniFD2A

[graphicore]

At which position should the replacement happen? Should the replacement happen by default (i.e. in calt which is on by default) or in a stylistic set?

[Tarobish]

At the second one, it has to be default When two or more of the "dotless beh" families are neighbors

KB STUDIO

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

At which position should the replacement happen? Should the replacement happen by default (i.e. in calt which is on by default) or in a stylistic set?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[graphicore]

The second group seems odd to me. How comes that there are fina characters but then you expect ligatures to come?

Also, uni066E.calt Is an initial character, I just checked, you most certainly want to have the base of the first group replaced. And the second group is probably without the fina glyphs.

[graphicore]

When two or more of the "dotless beh" families are neighbors

I get it, you mixed up the the threads :-) Look at them on github ;-)

[graphicore]

Ok, I made it as you described (first row in the image). That is:

1. base uni066E.init
2. base uniFEB4
3. base uniFEB4
4. one of these bases: uniFEF0 uni06CD.fina uniFEAE uni08AA.fina

But I wonder if you rather intend to have it like this:

1. base uni066E.init
2. base uniFEB4
3. one of these bases: uniFEF0 uni06CD.fina uniFEAE uni08AA.fina

Because the repetition of the uniFEB4 base in the middle seems odd to me.

Note: in the second row the replacement is not happening.

[Tarobish]

In the first row it works perfect, it has to be same as well as the second one. Point of this character is when characters from "dotlessbeh-ar.init" comes before "seen-ar.medi" and "seen-ar.fina" families, its going to be to many tooth so "dotlessbeh-ar.init" will change to"dotlessbeh-ar.calt" to have a better look. do you know why its not happening in the second one? also can i see it with the "uni069C.fina" and "uniFEB2" please?

[graphicore]

do you know why its not happening in the second one?

Because you did not ask me to do so.

How many uniFEB4 are happening in a row at max? I have to make one rule for each. Now I have a rule for one and two consecutive uniFEB4.

[Tarobish]

Sorry i dint get it :(

[Tarobish]

thats what you mean? because we had it here for the ligatures (The last two row)

[graphicore]

That's what you asked me to do. But I got it now. I will push an update soon.

[Tarobish]

Great :) Many Thanks

[graphicore]

http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArrlRQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzWrKFQbmZubWINrM0tk6Ji8mD0XM2BhTzM0RTFs4OmLImZs6Q9Q4uyDkTE2g5jui0Cj6cahBMQfdDjR3xOQBvZaSWALytJGBoZmugZGugVmIgZGVqaWVsYGekZlJlFItAM94Ucs=

[Tarobish]

Awesome :) toy are the best and we have this for all the families, right?

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArrlRQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzWrKFQbmZubWINrM0tk6Ji8mD0XM2BhTzM0RTFs4OmLImZs6Q9Q4uyDkTE2g5jui0Cj6cahBMQfdDjR3xOQBvZaSWALytJGBoZmugZGugVmIgZGVqaWVsYGekZlJlFItAM94Ucs= http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArrlRQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzWrKFQbmZubWINrM0tk6Ji8mD0XM2BhTzM0RTFs4OmLImZs6Q9Q4uyDkTE2g5jui0Cj6cahBMQfdDjR3xOQBvZaSWALytJGBoZmugZGugVmIgZGVqaWVsYGekZlJlFItAM94Ucs= https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/393132/12864307/c70bc01e-cc86-11e5-8519-45e402652a37.png — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Tarobish/Katibeh/issues/73#issuecomment-180664216.

[graphicore]

Which families?

[Tarobish]

can i see it with the three dots above? just want to check for any possible colliding

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:06 PM, K-B-STUDIO tarobish@gmail.com wrote:

Awesome :) toy are the best and we have this for all the families, right?

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Lasse Fister <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArrlRQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzWrKFQbmZubWINrM0tk6Ji8mD0XM2BhTzM0RTFs4OmLImZs6Q9Q4uyDkTE2g5jui0Cj6cahBMQfdDjR3xOQBvZaSWALytJGBoZmugZGugVmIgZGVqaWVsYGekZlJlFItAM94Ucs= http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArrlRQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzWrKFQbmZubWINrM0tk6Ji8mD0XM2BhTzM0RTFs4OmLImZs6Q9Q4uyDkTE2g5jui0Cj6cahBMQfdDjR3xOQBvZaSWALytJGBoZmugZGugVmIgZGVqaWVsYGekZlJlFItAM94Ucs= https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/393132/12864307/c70bc01e-cc86-11e5-8519-45e402652a37.png — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Tarobish/Katibeh/issues/73#issuecomment-180664216.

[Tarobish]

"dotlessbeh-ar.init” families like "peh-ar.init” or "theh-ar.init”

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

Which families?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Tarobish/Katibeh/issues/73#issuecomment-180664362.

[graphicore]

can i see it with the three dots above? just want to check for any possible colliding

Can't you write that yourself in http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html?

"dotlessbeh-ar.init” families like "peh-ar.init” or "theh-ar.init”

Should be, at least for everything that is decomposed to the base glyphs. It's not necessarily the case, I did only decompose what was needed for the ligatures, but that covers a lot.

[Tarobish]

I just did, it docent function in some characters like the second and third one, but we don't have colliding :) http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArolFQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzbd7bmxWuLnvxhYFIGsLiLX5xkaFG6tvbLmxMSYvJg+oOCWxBGSMkYGhma6Bka6BWYiBsZWhqZWpsZ6pqUmUUi0ATnwxjQ==

[Tarobish]

As well as these http://tarobish.github.io/Katibeh/html/live-testing.html#?eJyrVkrLzytRslIqNzEwUNJRKkmtKHHJLAIKFJXkAPmpucGZValArolFQQmQn5OYlw7kJRYB2clAnalgzTfbbmy+sVxB4eY+MH27B0GtUIjJi8kDqk5JLAGZY2RgaKZrYKRrYBZiYGxlaGFlZKlnZGQZpVQLAGjQMVQ=

[graphicore]

I just did, it docent function in some characters

I've just seen that you used here in the not working examples uni0634 (final) which is replaced in fina with uniFEB6 uniFEB6 could be decomposed into uniFEB2 + uniFBB6 but it is not.

Can you give me a complete list of characters that should be decomposed into uniFEB2 + any_marks Then the example will work.

As well as these

You did not ask for these! You asked for stuff ending with uniFD17 or uniFD2A

I'm not going to do anything on this issue until you make a proper description of what you want. Please start all over again and make a complete and solid description. Give me examples.

[Tarobish]

Sure! :)

[Tarobish]

Its all here

uni066E.init uniFE91 uniFB5C uniFB54 uniFB58 uni067D.init uni067C.init uniFE97 uniFB60 uniFB68 uniFE9B uni0751.init uniFB64 uni0754.init uni0753.init uni0752.init uni0756.init uni08A0.init uni0755.init uni06B9.init uniFEE7 uni06BC.init uniFEF3 uni08A9.init uni06CE.init uniFE8B uni063E.init uniFBFE uni063D.init uni0776.init uni0775.init uni063F.init uniFBE6 uni0620.init uni0777.init uni077A.init uni077B.init uni0767.init uni0769.init + uni069A.fina uniFEB4 uniFEB2 uniFEB6 uni069C.medi uni069C.fina uni069B.medi uni069B.fina uni069A.medi uni06FA.medi uni06FA.fina uniFEB8 uni075C.medi uni075C.fina uni0770.medi uni0770.fina uni076D.medi uni076D.fina uni077E.medi uni077E.fina uni077D.medi uni077D.fina

[Tarobish]

uni066E.init uniFE91 uniFB5C uniFB54 uniFB58 uni067D.init uni067C.init uniFE97 uniFB60 uniFB68 uniFE9B uni0751.init uniFB64 uni0754.init uni0753.init uni0752.init uni0756.init uni08A0.init uni0755.init uni06B9.init uniFEE7 uni06BC.init uniFEF3 uni08A9.init uni06CE.init uniFE8B uni063E.init uniFBFE uni063D.init uni0776.init uni0775.init uni063F.init uniFBE6 uni0620.init uni0777.init uni077A.init uni077B.init uni0767.init uni0769.init + uniFD17 uniFD2A

[Tarobish]

all of the characters before "+" has to function with each one after the "+" means uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc or uniFE91 + + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

[graphicore]

all of the characters before "+" has to function with each one after the "+" means uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc or uniFE91 + + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

Sorry, but that's probably the confusing part. It looks to me as if it is enough to look at two glyphs in any case.

[Tarobish]

Oh now I get it :) when I'm saying uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc It means uni066E.init + uni069A.fina uni066E.init + uniFEB4 uni066E.init + uniFEB2 uni066E.init + uniFEB6 Or

uniFE91 + uni069A.fina

uniFE91 + uniFEB4

uniFE91 + uniFEB2

uniFE91 + uniFD17 (every possible characters which comes after generating)

It means each one separately It's the same for the one you did .cal Each possible connection

KB STUDIO

On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

all of the characters before "+" has to function with each one after the "+" means uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc or uniFE91 + + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

Sorry, but that's probably the confusing part. It looks to me as if it is enough to look at two glyphs in any case.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[graphicore]

when I'm saying uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc It means […]

Right, but intitially you said something like:

uni066E.init, uniFE91, ... + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, ... + uniFD17, uniFD2A

Which was very confusing, as it implies it is important that after the second part** uniFD17 or uniFD2A must follow. But it isn't as it seems. Then you started throwing piecewise new requirements at me.

uniFE91 + + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

"+ +" I hope this is just a typo.

as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

Ok, so it's still not very good explained by you. So let's do a training.

Is the below correct? And could you consider making similar descriptions in the future?

Replace the base glyph of group 1 when it is followed by a glyph of group 2. Where:

group 1 = uni066E.init, uniFE91, uniFB5C, uniFB54, uniFB58, uni067D.init, uni067C.init, uniFE97, uniFB60, uniFB68, uniFE9B, uni0751.init, uniFB64, uni0754.init, uni0753.init, uni0752.init, uni0756.init, uni08A0.init, uni0755.init, uni06B9.init, uniFEE7, uni06BC.init, uniFEF3, uni08A9.init, uni06CE.init, uniFE8B, uni063E.init, uniFBFE, uni063D.init, uni0776.init, uni0775.init, uni063F.init, uniFBE6, uni0620.init, uni0777.init, uni077A.init, uni077B.init, uni0767.init, uni0769.init

group 2 = uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, uni069C.medi, uni069C.fina, uni069B.medi uni069B.fina, uni069A.medi, uni06FA.medi, uni06FA.fina, uniFEB8, uni075C.med, uni075C.fina, uni0770.medi, uni0770.fina, uni076D.medi, uni076D.fina, uni077E.medi, uni077E.fina, uni077D.medi, uni077D.fina, uniFD17, uniFD2A

Note that the last two glyphs of group 2 are ligatures.

[Tarobish]

KB STUDIO

On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:37 AM, Lasse Fister notifications@github.com wrote:

when I'm saying uni066E.init + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc It means […]

Right, but intitially you said something like:

uni066E.init, uniFE91, ... + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, ... + uniFD17, uniFD2A

Which was very confusing, as it implies it is important that after the second **part uniFD17 or uniFD2A must follow. But it isn't as it seems. Then you started throwing piecewise new requirements at me.

uniFE91 + + uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, etc as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

"+ +" I hope this is just a typo.

Sorry :) my bad as well as all of them with every ligatures which comes from uniFD17 and uniFD2A

Ok, so it's still not very good explained by you. So let's do a training.

Is the below correct? And could you consider making similar descriptions in the future?

Replace the base glyph of group 1 when it is followed by a glyph of group 2. Where:

group 1 = uni066E.init, uniFE91, uniFB5C, uniFB54, uniFB58, uni067D.init, uni067C.init, uniFE97, uniFB60, uniFB68, uniFE9B, uni0751.init, uniFB64, uni0754.init, uni0753.init, uni0752.init, uni0756.init, uni08A0.init, uni0755.init, uni06B9.init, uniFEE7, uni06BC.init, uniFEF3, uni08A9.init, uni06CE.init, uniFE8B, uni063E.init, uniFBFE, uni063D.init, uni0776.init, uni0775.init, uni063F.init, uniFBE6, uni0620.init, uni0777.init, uni077A.init, uni077B.init, uni0767.init, uni0769.init

group 2 = uni069A.fina, uniFEB4, uniFEB2, uniFEB6, uni069C.medi, uni069C.fina, uni069B.medi uni069B.fina, uni069A.medi, uni06FA.medi, uni06FA.fina, uniFEB8, uni075C.med, uni075C.fina, uni0770.medi, uni0770.fina, uni076D.medi, uni076D.fina, uni077E.medi, uni077E.fina, uni077D.medi, uni077D.fina, uniFD17, uniFD2A

Note that the last two glyphs of group 2 are ligatures.

Exactly :) it's correct Sorry, I didn't explain this very well It was confusing — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[graphicore]

This should be fixed now. Please check.

[Tarobish]

Great :)