Missing Old Hungarian diacritics

[dscorbett]

Font

NotoSansOldHungarian-Regular.ttf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/d7af81e614086435102cca95961b141b3530a027/hinted/NotoSansOldHungarian-Regular.ttf
Date: 2018-10-31

Font version

Version 2.000;GOOG;noto-source:20181019:f8f3770

Issue

Noto Sans Old Hungarian is missing some diacritics. Modern Old Hungarian is in flux and there have been multiple competing proposals, some of which extend the character set with diacritics.

According to http://nyelvmuveles.hu/osi-magyar-iras-rovas/27, U+0304 COMBINING MACRON was proposed in 1903 to mark long vowels, and U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE was recently proposed to distinguish /e/ from /eː/.

According to https://web.archive.org/web/20190505131414/http://nyelvmuveles.hu/elveink/tanuljunk-konnyen-rovasirni-%E2%80%93-koszonet-raduly-janosnak-a-bolcs-megoldasert, U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT was also proposed to mark long vowels.

According to L2/11-242R, U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE is a duplicating mark.

[ghost]

Please remove non-UNICODE characters. Most of the characters (like with .ltr subtag) won't appear.
See the https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10C80.pdf document! Don't use ad-hoc "standards", please.

[ghost]

No Tofu doesn't mean "stuff with fonts". It means "Won't Tofus , where are standardised characters defined in UNICODE."

[ghost]

There is a must to keep opened this Issue?

[ghost]

@dscorbett
There is a must to be opened this Issue?

[ghost]

@dscorbett
Using acute accent in Old Hungarian script is not scientific. Acute accent is using in latin based Hungarian script. Latin based modern Hungarian script use the acute accent for long vovels. Old Hungarian script use differrent letters for long and short vovels.
Please close this Issue

[ghost]

Sorry, I got a spelling problem. I wrote vovels instesd of vowels.

[ghost]

@dscorbett
It might be close!

[dscorbett]

@marekjez86, why was this closed?

[marekjez86]

@dscorbett : Noto fonts try to include scripts and features as defined by Unicode (many less :-)). It's not clear to me that any character outside of "U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark" is part of the standard.

This means that semantics of U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, U+0304 COMBINING MACRON , U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE in Old Hungarian will not be implemented in Noto until Unicode addresses these.

However, because we need to look at U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark I'll re-open the issue. Thank you for pointing this up.

[ghost]

Why need you U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE mark?

[ghost]

@dscorbett
Why do you need U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE, and the others?

[ghost]

@dscorbett
Why do you need U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE, and the others?

[dscorbett]

Because they are attested.

[ghost]

@dscorbett
I don't understand, why is not enough implementing UNICODE range U+10c80-U+10cff. It has more than required letters for writing Hungarian texts. If you strongly want these additional chars, implement them!
I would like, if the NoTo Old Hungarian font would be made, and published.
When I asked to implement reversed question mark, the answer was, that them implemented in base NoTo Sans font. If yours one once are implemented, why is needed implement in this font?
Do you know, UNICODE Old Hungarian standard has letters Old Hungarian "a" and "á" , not required adding acute chars.
I don't know, why was needed implementing ligatures without accessing UNICODE entry points, simple linking to names is not enough. I am Old Hungarian script fan and programmer, too. For the operating systems these letters are invisible!

[ghost]

@dscorbett
@marekjez86
Old_HUn_Vowels.pdf
The document above consists all of vowels : short and long, too.
You can see, that long vowels do not require acute!

[ghost]

@dscorbett
@marekjez86
I wouldn't like that you work unnecessary!

[ghost]

@dscorbett @marekjez86
I just read http://nyelvmuveles.hu
This homepage is one of the dosen "scientific reformer" page of Old Hungarian. The ad-hoc standard, you linked, is not accepted by UNICODE and is not accepted by the other Old Hungarian fan communities. Additionally acutes in Old Hungarian scripts never was used during in the history. Acutes used only in latin based Hungarian script because of that, base latin letters is not enough for writing readable Hungarian texts. Please comment it and close this issue. There is, for example "scientific reformer" page is http://rovas.info/

[dscorbett]

Unicode encodes characters; it doesn’t “accept” specific orthographies, so your latest comment is misleading. From your comments on this and other reports, it is clear that you do not understand Unicode. Your preferred style of Old Hungarian is not the only one worthy of font support. I am not going to close the Old Hungarian issues I’ve opened.

[ghost]

@dscorbett

[ghost]

@dscorbett
You do not understand me! The Old Hungarian script is historial script. Never used it with acute during the history. The UNICODE standard 8.0 defines Old Hungarian glyphs and its codepoints.
If you think, that I do not understand UNICODE philosophy, let me these "missing" characters to add to Old Hungarian font. May I ask You to tell me, where could I find the original noto fonts sources, and tell me please working with fontforge is ready for development, or I must be choose another font editor. I do it in the next week.

[ghost]

@marekjez86 You can help me to give me informations I asked previous comment?

[ghost]

Unicode encodes characters; it doesn’t “accept” specific orthographies, so your latest comment is misleading. From your comments on this and other reports, it is clear that you do not understand Unicode. Your preferred style of Old Hungarian is not the only one worthy of font support. I am not going to close the Old Hungarian issues I’ve opened.

I am so sorry, that I don't speak English fluently. I think, you don't speak/read Hungarian language at all.

[ghost]

@dscorbett I don't prefer a style. I prefer the standard. And the UNICODE standard doesn't encode Old Hungarian script's long vowels with acute, it encode with different form. And You first see the base NotoSans font. The characters, you need, implemented once in that main font.

[ghost]

@marekjez86 You could check me back?

[tamasbartos]

@dscorbett My helpers are András Tisza, Klára Friedrich, and Miklós Szondi, who were there for the vote when the standard was adopted. Miklós Szondi organized, for example, the congress in Solt city. That was an imortant congress to adopt the standard. The Old Hungarian script's standard is not only part of the Unicode standard, it is a Hungarian standard, too. Please check MSZ ISO/IEC 10646:2018 ! As I know that is the lastets form of standard.

[tamasbartos]

@marekjez86 Dear Marek Jezoriek, Dear Management,
This issue contradics the Unicode standard and the Hungarian standard as well.
These standards also do not encode and/or adopt the use of ligatures.

[tamasbartos]

@marekjez86 I complain that Google ignores not only the Unicode standard, but also the relevant Hungarian standard (MSZ ISO/IEC 10646:2018) when not closing this issue.
There is a must to remove all ligatures from the Old Hungarian font, according to the relevant Unicode and Hungarian standards ( MSZ ISO/IEC 10646:2018)

[tamasbartos]

@dscorbett @marekjez86 HOW MANY COMMENT AND E-MAIL OF PROTECT REQUIRED TO CLOSE THIS ISSUE?

[tamasbartos]

@marekjez86 Dear Marek Jezoriek, Dear Management,
May I ask you to look into the relevant international and national standards?
ISO/IEC 10646:2020 (Interrnational) and MSZ ISO/IEC 10646:2018 (Hungarian National)

[tamasbartos]

@dscorbett I have a question: when will the Clingon alphabet implemented in noto-fonts projekt?
You asked, why the Latinization wrong, you wrote me that I have no problems Latinizated ligatures.
My full answer is: I disagree with ligatures at all,too. There are more problems with those. You wrote for someboy somewhere: if he doesn't want , do not use it..
Do you think, that was a correct answer?
Please read previous comment in this issue #1374 .

[tamasbartos]

@dscorbett Please read, for example issue #2001 #1983

[robihorvath]

@dscorbett : Noto fonts try to include scripts and features as defined by Unicode (many less :-)). It's not clear to me that any character outside of "U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark" is part of the standard.

This means that semantics of U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, U+0304 COMBINING MACRON , U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE in Old Hungarian will not be implemented in Noto until Unicode addresses these.

However, because we need to look at U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark I'll re-open the issue. Thank you for pointing this up.

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2N4267 is the document that explain why standardization had to be restarted.
In the JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4420 document is written, that the L2/12-168R are supported.
In the document L2/12-334R you can read about PDAM voting. In document above is written about The document L2/11-242R, but in the document aren't written about that diacritics was adopted from that document.
In the documents above (except L2/11-242R) nowhere can read about required diacritics.
In the document L2/12-334R you can not read already about ligatures, too.
The final standard has been determined in Unicode standard 8.0 You can not read about ligatures and diacritics.
The document L2/11-242R Dated in 2011 year, so that has ignored elements.
The Unicode chart of Old Hungarian charset is the full charset.
As you can see, during the standardization were removed more elements, that were in the drafts previously.
So I think, and the protesters in noto-font's googlegroups think, this issue must be closed.

[robihorvath]

Font

NotoSansOldHungarian-Regular.ttf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts/blob/d7af81e614086435102cca95961b141b3530a027/hinted/NotoSansOldHungarian-Regular.ttf
Date: 2018-10-31

Font version

Version 2.000;GOOG;noto-source:20181019:f8f3770

Issue

Noto Sans Old Hungarian is missing some diacritics. Modern Old Hungarian is in flux and there have been multiple competing proposals, some of which extend the character set with diacritics.

According to http://nyelvmuveles.hu/osi-magyar-iras-rovas/27, U+0304 COMBINING MACRON was proposed in 1903 to mark long vowels, and U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE was recently proposed to distinguish /e/ from /eː/.

According to https://web.archive.org/web/20190505131414/http://nyelvmuveles.hu/elveink/tanuljunk-konnyen-rovasirni-%E2%80%93-koszonet-raduly-janosnak-a-bolcs-megoldasert, U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT was also proposed to mark long vowels.

According to L2/11-242R, U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE is a duplicating mark.

The document L2/11-242R doesn't contain any description, that need to use U+0304 COMBINING MACRON and U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE and U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, just U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACCUTE, which used as duplication mark, not as accents for long vowels.
The Unicode standard's Old Hungarian part doesn't contain any description, that need to use U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACCUTE.
The document L2/11-242R is an ad-hoc report only, for consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 only.
This Issue doesn't follow the Unicode Standard.

[robihorvath]

@dscorbett : Noto fonts try to include scripts and features as defined by Unicode (many less :-)). It's not clear to me that any character outside of "U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark" is part of the standard.

This means that semantics of U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, U+0304 COMBINING MACRON , U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE in Old Hungarian will not be implemented in Noto until Unicode addresses these.

However, because we need to look at U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACUTE duplicating mark I'll re-open the issue. Thank you for pointing this up.

Please close the Issue, because:
The document L2/11-242R doesn't contain any description, that need to use U+0304 COMBINING MACRON and U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE and U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, just U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACCUTE, which used as duplication mark, not as accents for long vowels.
The Unicode standard's Old Hungarian part doesn't contain any description, that need to use U+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACCUTE.
The document L2/11-242R is an ad-hoc report only, for consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 only.
This Issue doesn't follow the Unicode Standard.

[robihorvath]

@dscorbett @marekjez86 Please In this issue in the unicode document referred by @dscorbett (L2/11-242R) aren't written to use u+0304, u+0307, u+0301 accents just u+1DC4 COMBINING MACRON-ACCUTE as duplication mark. Long vowels aren't duplicated letters. That document is for consideration only. In the Unicode standard doesn't contain duplication mark at all. Please close this issue, because it just blocks the further developments..

[robihorvath]

@dscorbett @marekjez86 That's The "American Freedom" : MS blocks any Old Hungarian script input to MS Word and MS Edge browser, Google's developers know better what are in the Unicode standard than standardizators.
Unfortunately MTA (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia - Hungarian Scientific Academy) doesn't know what is in the standard or what is not. MTA doesn't even care.

[robihorvath]

@dscorbett @marekjez86 In the previous comment I want to write "Google's developers want to know better what are in the Old Hungarian part of Unicode standard than standardizers" It was a Hungarian style astringent remark.

[tamasbartos]

@dscorbett May I ask you, drop a feedback to Unicode, when was the Old Hungarian script revoked from the DAM period, and what does "duplication mark" mean in this case?

[dscorbett]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

[tamasbartos]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

That's right.! So we must to wait for the answer, yet..
I am sorry for the rough comments, I was a little bit nervious.

[tamasbartos]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

Didn't answer yet?

[tamasbartos]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

Sorry....
Didn't they answer yet?

[dscorbett]

No.

[tamasbartos]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

Can I help you? Ask Michael Everson! He knows better, that Old Hungarian script when and why was revoked from the DAM period.

[tamasbartos]

I submitted feedback to Unicode in November asking for clarification on this issue. They haven’t answered yet.

Didn't they answer yet?

[dscorbett]

No.

[rovasinfo]

I agree with @ghost there are no accutes in the Rovas scripts, it would cause problems. Accute is used to modify a character in order to represent another sound. This is unnecessary in Rovas script.
Glyph variants are existing without any external graphical element (accutes).