Noto Sans Chakma font

[Bivuti]

Dear Sir, I have observed that the Noto Sans Chakma font does not well rendering Some Chakma Character according to rule of Indic Shaping Property of U+11134. Now Windows 10 OS well rendering with RibengUni.ttf. Also well working all apps under this OS. But Firefox and Chrome not work with both font (RibengUni & Noto Sans Chakma). I think there is two issues here one is Font and other is Browser (Chrome & Firefox). So please take a look where is error & why occurs showing such rendering on Chrome and Firefox?

Title Noto Sans Chakma font not well rendering Ekaara E (U+1112C) with Maayyaa (U+11134) with Virama (U+11133)

Font Noto Sans Chakma.ttf

Where the font came from, and when Site: https://www.google.com/get/noto/#sans-cakm Date: 2017-10-24

Font Version: 2.000;GOOG;noto-source:20170915;90ef993387c0;ttfautohint (v 1.7)

OS name and version Noto Sans Chakma.ttf

Application name and version Google Chrome; Version 67.0.3396.99 (Official Build) (64-bit) Mozila Firefox; 61.0.1 (64-bit)

Observed results: 𑄟𑄭𑄪 𑄟𑄧 𑄣𑄬𑄊𑄨𑄚𑄨𑄢𑄳𑄠 𑄇𑄨𑄖𑄴𑄳𑄠𑄬 𑄆𑄘𑄧𑄇𑄴 𑄇𑄮𑄌𑄴 𑄛𑄋𑄴𑅁 𑄆𑄄 𑄖𑄨𑄚𑄴𑄳𑄦𑄮 𑄦𑄧𑄢𑄧𑄇𑄴 𑄇𑄨𑄖𑄳𑄠𑄴𑄬 𑄃𑄧𑄌𑄴𑄘𑄳𑄠𑄧 𑄦𑄧𑄢𑄧𑄇𑄴 𑄇𑄧𑄚𑄴𑄂 𑄄 𑄃𑄎𑄠𑄴 𑄃𑄨 𑄃𑅅 𑄃𑄩 𑄅 𑄃𑄎𑄠𑄴 𑄃𑄪 𑄃𑅅 𑄃𑄫 𑄆 𑄃𑄎𑄠𑄴 𑄃𑄬 𑄃𑅅 𑄃𑄬𑄬𑅁 𑄛𑄳𑄣𑄮𑄢𑄨𑄓 𑄥𑄉𑄧𑄢𑄴 𑄝𑄁𑄣𑄘𑄬𑄎𑄧𑄖𑄴 𑄚𑄬𑄭𑅁 𑄄𑄠𑄚𑄴 𑄅𑄖𑄴𑄧𑄢𑄴 𑄃𑄟𑄬𑄢𑄨𑄇𑄖𑄴

Character data Unicode codepoints: U+01111F U+01112D U+01112A U+0020 U+01111F U+011127 U+0020 U+011123 U+01112C U+01110A U+011128 U+01111A U+011128 U+011122 U+011133 U+011120 U+0020 U+011107 U+011128 U+011116 U+011134 U+011133 U+011120 U+01112C U+0020 U+011106 U+011118 U+011127 U+011107 U+011134 U+0020 U+011107 U+01112E U+01110C U+011134 U+0020 U+01111B U+01110B U+011134 U+011141 U+000A U+011106 U+011104 U+0020 U+011116 U+011128 U+01111A U+011134 U+011133 U+011126 U+01112E U+0020 U+011126 U+011127 U+011122 U+011127 U+011107 U+011134 U+0020 U+011107 U+011128 U+011116 U+011133 U+011120 U+011134 U+01112C U+0020 U+011103 U+011127 U+01110C U+011134 U+011118 U+011133 U+011120 U+011127 U+0020 U+011126 U+011127 U+011122 U+011127 U+011107 U+011134 U+0020 U+011107 U+011127 U+01111A U+011134 U+011102 U+000A U+011104 U+0020 U+011103 U+01110E U+011120 U+011134 U+0009 U+011103 U+011128 U+0020 U+011103 U+011145 U+0020 U+011103 U+011129 U+000A U+011105 U+0020 U+011103 U+01110E U+011120 U+011134 U+0020 U+011103 U+01112A U+0020 U+011103 U+011145 U+0020 U+011103 U+01112B U+000A U+011106 U+0020 U+011103 U+01110E U+011120 U+011134 U+0020 U+011103 U+01112C U+0020 U+011103 U+011145 U+0020 U+011103 U+01112C U+01112C U+011141 U+000A U+01111B U+011133 U+011123 U+01112E U+011122 U+011128 U+011113 U+0020 U+011125 U+011109 U+011127 U+011122 U+011134 U+0020 U+01111D U+011101 U+011123 U+011118 U+01112C U+01110E U+011127 U+011116 U+011134 U+0020 U+01111A U+01112C U+01112D U+011141 U+0020 U+011104 U+011120 U+01111A U+011134 U+0020 U+011105 U+011116 U+011134 U+011127 U+011122 U+011134 U+0020 U+011103 U+01111F U+01112C U+011122 U+011128 U+011107 U+011116 U+011134

Screenshot Observed Result: On Firefox browser with Noto Sans Chakma font:

On Facebook with Firefox browser with Noso Sans Chakma font:

On NotePad in Windows 10 with Noto Sans Chakma font:

Expected Result: On NotePad in Windows10 with RibengUni font:

Note that, This was possible according to the rule of Indic Shaping Property for U+11134 as below: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16303-chakma-maayyaa-chg.pdf

[punchcutter]

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the font. harfbuzz needs to be updated to handle U+11134 as Gemination_Mark. That will fix the USE cluster validation and everything should be good on Firefox and Chrome.

Windows, on the other hand, is a totally different issue. For some reason GPOS mark and mkmk attachment don't work on Windows for Chakma. I reported that to Andrew Glass a year or so ago, but it still seems broken. Also, from your screenshot it seems to be the old Noto Chakma font. We added U+11144, U+11145, U+11146 so those will show up now if you have the latest font. And your screenshot shows all the below base forms failing in Noto Chakma. I see the same thing in Notepad, but Word reads the blwf feature correctly. But without GPOS working on Windows it still won't look right.

[Bivuti]

@punchcutter I would be happy if you provide the link of Noto Chakma font updated version so that I can test it from my side. On question- What is the different with RibengUni and Noto Chakma? If RibengUni work fine in Windows so why Noto Chakma not work here?

[punchcutter]

The latest font is in https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/tree/master/phaseIII_only/unhinted/ttf/NotoSansChakma I'm not sure what the difference is with RibengUni right now. Do you have a new version of RibengUni? The latest version I have is one you sent in April. If you can send me the latest I can check and see why it's different from Noto.

[Bivuti]

Yes! the RibengUni font latest version is here with source code: RibengUni (1 Jul 2018).zip

I have tested your Noto Chakma but still I found something wrong here. Actually I don't what has different with this font with RibengUni? Here is screenshot: With Noto Font: With RibengUni font: In Word 2016 with Noto font:

In Word 2016 with RibengUni font:

Please take a look about the matter, why the font behaves different same OS?

[punchcutter]

There are a couple issues here:

1. Windows isn't applying GPOS at all
2. Notepad isn't applying the blwf feature for subscript forms, but Word 2016 is

One difference between Noto Chakma and RibengUni is that Noto uses all the appropriate OpenType features for the various shaping operations (like blwf and blws, abvs, pstf, pres). RibengUni is doing everything in ccmp. Either way should work in this case. The problem is not that Noto uses the other features, but that Windows is completely broken and does not apply any of the features as it should.

Your problem with Word 2016 looks like a font cache problem. It's possible that you have multiple versions of the font in the C:\Windows\Fonts folder or the registry is messed up. You might need to delete it from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts and then reinstall the font. Or there are other tools to clean the font cache and/or install and manage fonts. The same text works for me with the latest Noto Chakma in Word 2016 (except it's still wrong because Windows isn't applying features or GPOS).

[Bivuti]

@punchcutter Thanks for detail description. I have followed all instruction as you described here, but still I found that problem! Hope take a look the matter in your side so that in future it will work nicely.

[punchcutter]

This should be fixed if the latest update is built with the PR https://github.com/googlefonts/ufo2ft/pull/522 so that the mark attachment uses abvm and blwm instead of mark and mkmk. Windows should read either of those, but apparently it's hard-coded to only expect abvm and blwm for Chakma.

[marekjez86]

Source code change https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-source/pull/402 fixed the issue. Please see hinted font at https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/tree/main/hinted/ttf/NotoSansChakma or unhinted at https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/tree/main/unhinted/ttf/NotoSansChakma . Thank you @punchcutter

[marekjez86]

Reopened because I haven't rebuild with the PR googlefonts/ufo2ft#522

[SKing-2003]

This change will be made in the next release.