GNU bug report logs - #55529
[PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:13:25 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is the new patch, Please review it.

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 8:38 PM समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <
lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> I think "Tagalog" as the English label in HELLO is okay, but the
>> script native name in parentheses should be Baybayin.
>>
>> > I was also thinking about changing the
>> > input method from Tagalog to Baybayin, should I do that?
>>
>> No, I think it should be 'tagalog', but the doc string should say that
>> it supports the Baybayin script.
>>
>> >  Is this really so important?  The Wikipedia article says that Filipino
>> >  is a version of Tagalog standardized by the constitution of 1987.
>> >  Wouldn't it be better to support a modern language used nowadays and
>> >  not just its older version?
>> >
>> > Doesn't the modern language use the Roman script, instead of Baybayin?
>> >
>> >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
>> >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
>> >
>> > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
>> the Roman script for the filipino language,
>> > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
>> > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
>>
>> OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
>> use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
>> where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
>> the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
>> consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
>> and the script names.
>>
>
> Thanks I will do these.
>
> Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
>> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>>
>
> https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/Noto-Sans-Tagalog/tree/master/dist
> This is what worked best for me, the older Noto font did not have
> characters for Ra, Alternative Ra, and Pamudpod, this one has it.
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> > Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:23:03 +0300
>> > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
>> >
>> > >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find
>> in
>> > >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
>> > >
>> > > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
>> the Roman script for the filipino language,
>> > > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
>> > > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
>> >
>> > OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
>> > use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
>> > where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
>> > the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
>> > consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
>> > and the script names.
>>
>> Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
>> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Add-support-for-the-Tagalog-script.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.