Template talk:ug-Arab

Discussion
The fonts they are using do not work for Uyghur. Uyghur is quite a different alphabet from Arabic and it requires Uyghur fonts to display it. Since you changed the template, the Uyghur entries have become illegible. It’s even worse than what has happened to the Russian fonts. In ئامېرىكا قوشما شتاتلىرى there should be two word spaces and five letter breaks. The letter breaks are supposed to be after the alif and raa in the first word, after waw in the second, and after alif and raa in the third. Instead, I get 18 letter breaks. Not one single letter connects to any other. —Stephen 07:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your example is displaying correctly for me (FF/WinXP, all defaults) on the page (not in the edit window as I type this, there are too many letter breaks, but that is whatever FF is using in the edit box). I don't see anything that has been changed, the font set is as before. (Was it always no good?) Robert Ullmann 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did this change fix it? Nadando 07:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It used to look great. The Uyghur had an extremely crisp and clean look and all the letters made the appropriate connections. I’m using FF/WinXP too, and I have Uyghur fonts, but I can’t read this at all. (And no, I don’t see that anything changed.) —Stephen 07:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * hmm, the template is doing: ئامېرىكا قوشما شتاتلىرى (pardon the intermediate edit while I subst it) now remove the CSS class ... and that should look exactly as it did before. Does it, or not? (looks the same to me, with default fonts) Do you happen to recall which font it is that you like that you added to the default WinXP set? (edit conflict) Robert Ullmann 07:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I see that the Russian is messed up, the Arabic is hard to read, the Tamil is very hard to read, the Khmer is hard to read, the Uyghur is illegible. The only non-Roman script so far that has turned out well is the Devanagari, which is still nice and clear. —Stephen 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it’s trying to use TITUS Cyberbit Basic, that would be a good reason for the illegible appearance. TITUS Cyberbit Basic can’t do Uyghur. —Stephen 07:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does my example look the same or different? Robert Ullmann 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I’ve removed TITUS Cyberbit, it looks a lot better. Still not like it used to be, but it’s legible at least. I can’t understand why your example is legible while the original one I put is still illegible. —Stephen 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I found Titus Cyberbit in the ug-Arab template. I’ve removed it, it should be better now. —Stephen 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, changing the template while we are trying to find the problem is not helpful. (and now is out of sync with the CSS) Tell me what this looks like:

 ئامېرىكا قوشما شتاتلىرى (example 1)

I'm trying to find out what in the re-arrangment has changed something. It shouldn't have, but clearly did. Does the (immediately) above look like it used to, or still broken? Robert Ullmann 08:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And tell me what this looks like:

ئامېرىكا قوشما شتاتلىرى (example 2)

This should be identical to what the way it looked say last week. Is it? Robert Ullmann 08:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t look like it used to, but it’s improved . It’s smaller and not as clean. The two ى letters still do not connect. If I use the Uyghur font template, ئامېرىكا قوشما شتاتلىرى is correct. I see that my browser is now using Scheherazade, which is a complete font for Uyghur, but small. —Stephen 08:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as I saved, the your examples got much worse. They don’t connect anymore. Oh, I see you’ve added TITUS Cyberbit Basic back in. —Stephen 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to find out what happenned, and can't do that while you change things as in this edit or in the template. There are two numbered examples. Are they the same? Does (2) look like it did previously? Robert Ullmann 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert the style sheet and template changes if I have screwed things up for you. Apologies, but hopefully it will be easier to troubleshoot this stuff when everything is in one place.

I found it easiest to evaluate fonts in isolation (e.g. in Appendix talk:Old Cyrillic alphabet). Install the Unicode BMP Fallback Font, and have a look at these:


 * It's very late and I have to go now, but let me know if I can help tomorrow. —Michael Z. 2008-11-26 08:32 z 


 * There is something wrong with the interaction of the classes and the style attribute and :inherit; I can't find it when examples keep getting changed around! My second example (2) above ought to be identical to previously, but I need Stephen to tell me what each of (1) and (2) look like. Robert Ullmann 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget, as long as there are inline styles in the templates, inherit will be broken. (And of course it's always broken in MSIE.) —Michael Z. 2008-11-26 08:41 z 


 * (1) and (2) look exactly the same, except that (2) is smaller. None of the letters connect (because they’re apparently using TITUS Cyberbit).
 * Of Mzajac’s examples, the first four are legible, with only a few broken letters (all the yaa’s), while Scheherazade and Arabic Typesetting are completely correct, but tiny. The TITUS is illigible. —Stephen 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * does either 1 or 2 look like previously? (2) ought to be exactly the same. Robert Ullmann 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they are not like before. UKIJ Tuz looks more like it did before. I don’t have that font, so I don’t know what my browser is using for it. I’ve found a source for UKIJ Tuz at UKIJ and I’m going to install the UKIJ Tuz fonts. —Stephen 08:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

missing close brace on the .UG class in common.css might have something to do with it. Fixed of course. Robert Ullmann 08:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * example (2) should be identical to what {ug-Arab} was doing previously; I don't know why not. (doesn't use the class) But who knows? Robert Ullmann 08:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve loaded UKIJ Tuz regular and bold and now the examples look like they did before. —Stephen 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)