Uwe Stöhr schreef op 31-3-2014 23:04:
Am 31.03.2014 09:55, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
You say: "I would like to have that in master because otherwise Urdu
support will not work as advertised in
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX21";
However, Urdu is still unusable even with your patch.
How do you come to the conclusion?
I draw this conclusion because a user writing Urdu has made a bug report
that all characters appear as separate characters and they do not appear
in their contextual form. Jean-marc confirmed that this is hardcoded for
arabic and hebrew. Also, when I type arabic characters in an document
with the language Urdu, they do not appear correct. Also, when opening
the test file the characters are wrong.
My patch fixes an obvious oversight from my side and note that it also
fixes Syriac. So I don't see why this cannot got in. (It would
embarrass me when LyX 2.1 comes with such a stupid mistake from my side.)
Please read what I write. I believe that Urdu support is not fully
working, so I just asked the question ? Is it better to advertise a
non-working Urdu support or is it better to not advertise it at all.
The other problem the Urdu user has it about its special font. For me
it works when I copy some Urdu text from the Wikipedia and using
Windows 7 standard fonts. So the bug is about his special font - this
can be sort out later (if LyX is really to blame here).
Please show me that it works for you. You can make a screenshot or
whatever. At least, I don't see the correct characters whatever I try to.
> Maybe it's better to
drop the support instead of advertising support that is not there ?
That was meant ironic, right? If not, why should I remove a feature
when I can fix is with a 2-liner patch of a text file?
No, I was serious. You should not advertise a feature if it doesn't work.
regards Uwe
p.s. In German we have a saying "Ironie im Text zieht nie!" (irony in
texts will not be recognized as such)
Please read what I write and don't read what I don't write.
Vincent
