hehehe... wherever they got it from they got the ම් from somewhere else!

ruvan.


Harshula wrote:
Hi Everyone,

We need some feedback on Fedora's LKLUG font glyphs, it will be what
appears on OLPC.

The current situation is not good. Have a look at (all are supposed to
be consonants with al-lakuna):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354818

Please provide your feedback ASAP.

cya,
#

Here's a quick summary of what I observed:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=206001

Comment #15 From Harshula Jayasuriya 2009-07-21 03:44:33 EDT ------- 
Hi,

I recently noticed that Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA) on Fedora 11 looks
incorrect:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=142050

It looks like a Mayanna (U+0DB8) which has been compressed vertically and then
an is-pilla (U+0DD2) placed on it. The particular is-pilla glyph that has been
used is meant only for glyphs without an ascender. Furthermore, due to this
change Al-Mayanna now looks inconsistent with the Al (Virama) form of all the
other letters that contain an ascender.

My view is that Al-Mayanna (U+0DB8,U+0DCA) looked *more* correct before this
change. i.e. This change causes a regression.

Furthermore, I think these are all valid Al-Mayanna glyphs:
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=135992
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=135988
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354436

Whereas, this is a Miyanna:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=354437

I think the difference between the Al-Mayanna and Miyanna is the sharp point at
the top left corner of the Al-Mayanna. I will double check on this.

It would appear that Bug 209572 contains most of the discussion regarding this
particular bug.

My recommendation is to revert back to the previous Al-Mayanna glyph.

cya,
#
-------------------------------------------------------------------