My favorites | Sign in
Project Home Downloads Wiki Issues Code Search
New issue   Search
  Advanced search   Search tips   Subscriptions
Issue 194229: Serbian glyphs for Tinos, Arimo & Cousine
4 people starred this issue and may be notified of changes. Back to list
Status:  WontFix
Moved from:  issue chromium-os:11762
Closed:  Feb 2011

Sign in to add a comment
Reported by, Feb 7, 2011
Chrome OS Version  :  not applicable
Chrome Version     :  not applicable
Type of computer   :  not applicable
Network info       :  not applicable

Please specify Area-* of the system to which this bug/feature applies.
Fonts: Tinos, Arimo & Cousine

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Implement Serbian glyphs in both normal & italic Tinos
2. Implement Serbian glyphs in both normal & italic Arimo
3. Implement Serbian glyphs in normal Cousine (italic doesn't apply here because it's just slanted)

What is the expected output?
See the attachment

What do you see instead?
Those fonts provide only the Russian (standard) glyphs

Please provide any additional information below.
Russian (standard) Cyrillic glyphs are inappropriate in Serbian typesetting and should be avoided.
Russian vs. Serbian Glyphs.pdf
25.1 KB   Download
Feb 8, 2011
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Area- -Sev- Area-DesktopUI Sev-2 Fonts I18N
Feb 8, 2011
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Untriaged
Feb 11, 2011
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Assigned
Labels: Mstone-R11
Mar 30, 2011
Moving P2 R11 issues to R12...
Labels: Mstone-R12
May 23, 2011
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Mstone-R12 Mstone-R13
Aug 18, 2011
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: Mstone-R15
Oct 7, 2011
OK, for the sake of clarity, I just wanted to specify that bold/bold italic should also be affected as far as Tinos & Arimo are concerned, while Cousine only needs bold glyphs.
Oct 7, 2011
We can add glyphs with a necessary language tag to Tinos/Arimo, but it'd not be used until Chrome/webkit is capable of picking up glyphs per language. Currently, Chrome/Webkit cannot do that. 

BTW, do you have any font with *both* Serbian and Russian glyphs with appropriate OT tags?  Then, it'd be easier to file a bug in upstream (it should be filed in Webkit). 

Labels: -Mstone-R15 Mstone-X
Oct 7, 2011
Actually I use those fonts in XeLaTex in order to typeset texts, frankly I don't use Chromium OS. Fonts I know which do have support for Serbian glyphs in addition to Russian a.k.a. standard ones are:
Ubuntu (name of the font)
Oct 7, 2011
While I agree with most of what is written I don't agree with Be line (other glyphs mentioned in the attachment are ok).

U+0431 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BE shouldn't look like greek delta (I don't remember seeing it in any of the books or printed material in that form).

I would like to see a font or a newspaper scan that shows the use of greek delta if possible. Could you provide a sample?

 Небојша Ћирић
Oct 7, 2011
All fonts supporting Serbian Cyrillic do so:

Ubuntu (name of the font)

And many more.

I didn't invent that shape, it's recommended by Unicode and other typesetting firms like Adobe, I think they know their business.
Oct 7, 2011
This is a screenshot of Wikipedia taken with Firefox 7.0.1 on Ubuntu 11.04 showing Serbian BE.
Српски глифови на Википедији.png
193 KB   View   Download
Oct 7, 2011
Hi all.  I was asked by Небојша Ћирић to give my 2 cents, given my keen interest in the matter (I've spent more than 10 years in Serbian l10n and typography).

- It is true that separate Serbian-only glyphs exist.  However, the glyph for б isn't quite the same shape as Greek delta.  See here, from a Serbian typography website, sample of a Serbian font:!/ResavskaBG/iFramesCir/04XL.html  In contrast, I believe that the Wikipedia entry is thusly wrong on the shape of the letter BE, though it correctly points out that the difference does exist:

- The Serbian ortography recommends* the use of Serbian glyphs, but doesn't mandate it.  for introduction and a sample longhand of Serbian Cyrillic.  Regarding (*) I have to consult a (printed) ortography manual for the exact article number if you want me to; but I am fairly sure it's there.

- Some typographers I know RLY insist on Serbian glyphs.

- Some other typographers I know say they would rather see a unified pan-Slavic cyrillic script, instead of too many local variations.  They are just fine with using Russian-style glyphs.

- The Serbian glyph variations are supported only by very specialized typography software, I suspect mostly for reasons of their authors not realizing that there are differences. and probably comparatively small demand and ROI from the Serbian market.  

- Historically, there had been confusion about the user of Serbian-style glyphs in publishing, mostly because many of the early printing presses in Serbia were bought in, or donated from, the Russian Empire.

- Professional typesetting *will* require the distinction.  So there probably is ample reason to support.

- IMHO it would be *nice* to have, but isn't something we couldn't absolutely live without.

Oct 7, 2011
Well, I don't think there is much difference between the samples you provided me with and the Wikipedia font. The Akcija font BE does look like a Greek delta. And please note also that the Wikipedia font (it should be DejaVuSans) is non serif, so the output is much "rawer" than what one would get with, say, MinionPro or Constantia. But they too do have a delta-like Serbian BE. I'm going to upload a pdf showing you just that.
Oct 7, 2011
This page supports your view -, but even they say that Be is not a problem, since there is no ambiguity.

Unicode doesn't recommend shapes of the glyphs. Do you have a reference to the Unicode standard page that says otherwise?

I guess I am for the change, just not sure about the Be (the rest I agree with).
Oct 7, 2011
Also, keep in mind that when I was learning Serbian at the university, I was thought that Serbian BE looks like a Greek Delta. That's the shape I used in my homeworks and exams, NOT the Russian one.
Oct 7, 2011
Sorry, I meant OpenType, not Unicode.
Oct 7, 2011
Et voilà, added a comparison of Serbian BE versus Greek DELTA on some well known fonts. As you can see, differences are slight if non-existent. It's apparent this DELTA-like shape is well established in typography. I think I've got a point here.
Serbian BE versus Greek DELTA.pdf
69.2 KB   Download
Oct 7, 2011
What exactly are you trying to establish?

If you want to establish that the glyphs look similar, that's sort of obvious, and thanks for the comparison.

If you are trying to establish that they are *identical*, that isn't the case.  The glyph does resemble the greek delta, but isn't identical to it.  If you need the construction rules for the glyph, I'll try to look those up.

If you are trying to establish something else, then please explain.

Oct 7, 2011
Ahem... are you a native speaker of English? I'm not but the Collins dictionary tells us that...
"If you say that something is well-established, you mean that it has been in existence for quite a long time and is successful."
It's nothing to do with what I want to establish or what I think I'm establishing, it just makes the point that this DELTA-like shape has been in existence for quite a long time and is successful for typesetting Serbian.
Even if the constructions rules were identical, that wouldn't entail the unification of characters. Latin Letter A and Cyrillic Letter A have perfectly identical construction rules, still they're deemed TWO, not ONE letter.
Oct 7, 2011
I am not a native speaker of English.  I am a native Serbian speaker, though.

Oct 7, 2011
Одлично, говоримо српски. Established значи успоставан или констатован. Али well-established, то је идиом и значи афирмисан.
Oct 7, 2011
(pardon the fallback to Serbian at this point, I'm reiterating my last response in a language likely more familiar than English to both OP and myself.)

Моје питање је било: шта желите да утврдите (=to establish) у овој расправи: ако желите да укажете на чињеницу да су неки српски ћирилични словни облици другачији од словних облика који долазе из других ћирилица, онда сте у праву.

Словни облик за мало српско ћирилично слово Б није исти као словни облик за грчко мало слово делта, иако заиста личе.  У овом случају сличност не имплицира и идентитет словних облика и то је једино што сам желео да нагласим.  Имамо довољно података о конструкцији словног облика да додамо то у писмо

Не знам шта бих још корисно могао да напишем на ову тему.

(thanks everyone for your patience)

Oct 8, 2011
Слажем се 100% с оним што сте рекао. Заиста изражавали смо исти концепт, чак и ако нисмо били свесни тога. На италијанско језику бисмо рекли да смо се утопили у чаши воде :) Не, не треба да се напише ништа више о томе. Једва чекам бету фонтова да бих их тестирао.
Oct 24, 2011
Sorry to reopen the discussion, but I've been told that there should also be an OPTIONAL, that is NOT MANDATORY Serbian localized glyph for Italic U+0448 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SHA.
The glyph shape can be found in the image I uploaded, SHA is the last letter.
15.7 KB   View   Download
Oct 24, 2011
The following is only FYI, as an anecdotal evidence of the obsolescence of the said glyph.

AFAIK, that particular glyph for SHA has been abandoned many years ago.  

I learned how to write some 30 years or so ago; at the time the underlined SHA was already abandoned and I actually remember asking about it because I was kind of bummed at the time that we didn't get to underscore our SHAs.

I do not remember seeing the glyph in print since that time, and have only occasionally seen it in longhand.

Oct 24, 2011
OK, it might be obsolescent, but that's why it should be OPTIONAL, especially if one wants to typeset some older texts, I recommend not to leave it out. I mean, it should not be activated by default when you set the language tag to Serbian, that glyph should be contained the alternates subset: localized Serbian>alternates.
Anyhow, I can witness I've found it in my Serbian-Italian dictionary, published in 2000 (no reprint). Again, storing it in the Serbian-alternate lookup seems to me the best option. Or maybe historic, I don't know if that's possible as it is for ligatures.
Oct 24, 2011

I wasn't saying that it should be left out because it's old; I was just supplying an additional data point that says the glyph is out of regular use.

The use of the glyph in your book deserves some additional scrutiny, but that's out of scope of this discussion.

Oct 24, 2011
Yes, out of scope of this discussion, of course. I said it shouldn't be left out because in any case it cannot be imposed as the MANDATORY Serbian glyph, we should look for some solution that includes it as an alternative subset of Serbian localized GSUB. I know there's an alternate table, and a localization table, but what we need in this case is an alternate sub-table of the localization table. It cannot be classed as a purely and simply alternative glyph, for it would be inappropriate for typesetting, say, Russian.
Apr 4, 2012
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Area-DesktopUI Area-UI
May 2, 2012
This bug has not been touched in a while. Please re-open (in if you can repro in M20+. Thanks a lot for your help!
Status: WontFix
Mar 6, 2013
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: OS-Chrome
Mar 9, 2013
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Area-UI Cr-UI
Apr 15, 2013
Hi there, I don't understand whether you intend to add those glyphs or not.
Jul 14, 2013
Bump! So, will you implement it or not? I don't get it! Please let me know!
Sign in to add a comment

Powered by Google Project Hosting