Last modified: 2012-01-31 12:21:29 UTC
The RaghuGujarati font is licensed GNU GPL Version 2. (information by Dhaval S. Vyas. Please add this font for Gujarati and once tested make it generally available. Thanks, Gerard
Added the font in r110240. It will be available in translatewiki.net from tomorrow, please test and verify that it can be deployed in gu wiki projects. Main things to be verified by community: 1. The font is able to render arbitrary Gujarati text with out rendering issues. 2. The font is aesthetically good for displaying with content. 3. The text rendered is good for reading in various browsers and OS. Means, the text is not broken, enough dark etc.
(In reply to comment #1) > Added the font in r110240. It will be available in translatewiki.net from > tomorrow, please test and verify that it can be deployed in gu wiki projects. > Main things to be verified by community: > 1. The font is able to render arbitrary Gujarati text with out rendering > issues. > 2. The font is aesthetically good for displaying with content. > 3. The text rendered is good for reading in various browsers and OS. Means, the > text is not broken, enough dark etc. (In reply to comment #1) > Added the font in r110240. It will be available in translatewiki.net from > tomorrow, please test and verify that it can be deployed in gu wiki projects. > Main things to be verified by community: > 1. The font is able to render arbitrary Gujarati text with out rendering > issues. > 2. The font is aesthetically good for displaying with content. > 3. The text rendered is good for reading in various browsers and OS. Means, the > text is not broken, enough dark etc. Thanks for making this available for testing. Tested on 3 browsers, IE, Mozilla and Chrome, outcome is as below: 1. IE9: Language selection doesn't work at all for Narayam. So no testing could be done. 2. Mozilla: Font rendering problem, words are broken and not displayed correctly. 3. Chrome: Works perfectly well. મં ક્ષ જ્ઞ કૃ ઋ લ્પ દૃ are some of the typically auckward syllables, which are displayed correctly. Do we need to test Other browsers, e.g. Opera, Safari, etc?
Which OS did you use for testing reported on in comment 2?
Please provide screenshots for fail cases and make sure to include exact operating system and browser version details.
(In reply to comment #4) > Please provide screenshots for fail cases and make sure to include exact > operating system and browser version details. OS: WIndows VIsta IE: IE 9.0.4 Firefox: Firefox 9.0.1 (screenshots attaching)
Created attachment 9930 [details] Screenshots of New Font testing for Gujarati Language on Narayam, bug 33932 bug 33932
Thanks Dhaval for testing. I have a collection of screenshots for your reference here: http://crossbrowsertesting.com/users/34057/screenshots/zc6a1910ebcefa7d4d1c/public on various browsers. I can confirm the rendering issue in Firefox. Words like પશ્ચિમ is rendered wrongly with i matra sign going post base instead of pre base. Since other browsers are rendering this relatively ok, the issue can be either in the opentype tables of the font or browser itself. But that is beyond the scope of the WebFonts extension, extension is not doing any rendering other than supplying fonts to the browser. So I would suggest: 1. Gujarati community with the help of gujarati language developers, find out whether Raghu Gujarati has issue in open type tables. It is quite possible since I have seen similar issues in CDAC fonts. A support request to CDAC is going to be time taking anyway.This font was last updated on 2006. 2. Find out if the font renders well once installed locally on various version of OS. and find out whether it has issues with browsers. If it is browser issue file upstream bug. I dont see Raghu Gujarati being shipped in FOSS distros like Debian/Fedora, probably because of these issues. Also note that Raghu Gujarati font is varying width font(the strokes in glyphs have varying width), compared to uniform width font like Lohit Gujarati. So If you agree, I am planning to drop this font support.
(In reply to comment #7) Agree, drop it off. We have 2 more fonts on which's license status I am working, they are better than this anyways. Thansk for all of yours support and sorry for taking your time.
removed the font in r110384.
