Arabic diacritic

the diacritic in my font showed on top of each others, I tried every possible way, including “ligature” which gave strange behavior!
Finally, I decided that the “mkmk” is the best way to do it, but there is no “mkmk” feature generated for me.

Do you have “top” anchors in your mark glyphs? They have to be on top of then shape.
Did you read this?

Yes, here is a screenshot:

and this is the results:

Can you send me the .glyphs file and the text you have in your sample?

Sure, and thanks you in advance

Marks like /shadda-ar must have both top and _top anchors, and top must be above. The Mark problem was that top was much too low, so /fatha-ar would connect too low.

And what you call ‘Ligature’ here is actually not a ligature but a positional form. The medial /seen-ar.medi is lacking its top anchor as well. But without anchors, Glyphs cannot build the mark and mkmk feature for you.

So, all you have to do is make sure you have all the anchors placed properly. Press Cmd-U and move the anchors into position.

thanks for a good quick replies
So… I can’t make “ligatures” from “Marks”?
I built them as ligatures, and the program generates the codes for them as ligatures!

And for the “mkmk” problem, the preview shows me good position alignment for the shadda and fathatan, but even if I leave the top and _top at their default positions, I get the result.

Finally, why I didn’t get “mkmk” codes?

I played around with the font for a bit and was very stunned that it refused to work. Then I opened a new indesign document, pasted the text and it worked like a charm. So there is a problem with your Indesign document.

You need to clean up your vertical metrics. The ascender is supposed to be the highs value.

add top anchors on all your glyphs. if you set the x-height to something around 200, the automatic placement is much better.

You don’t need to add the mark ligatures to the liga feature. Just call them like shadda_fatha-ar and they will end up in the ccmp feature.

The anchors in the mark glyphs should have a similar distance on all marks. Use the cmd+opt+U shortcut to set them to some reasonable value.

Ah, sorry, now I get it: by ‘ligature’, you mean /shadda_fatha-ar? Yeah, Georg is right: Don’t hang the .liga at the end.

Thanks guys… you were great
I did everything you told me to do… but didn’t fix the problem.
Finally and simply… I tried to realign the combined marks, et voila!!

one more thing, and sorry for being annoying.
As you can see, there is a ligature called “allh-ar”, the thing is it didn’t generated automatically by the program, so I have to add it manually, since the other two generated automatically, why?

The glyph name is not recognised as a ligature. There are two options.

  1. There is a Unicode FDF2 for this glyph, it is called allah-ar, no suffix. I am not sure how this is implemented, but since it it has a Unicode, a text system can (theoretically) access it.
  2. For auto-generation, you should call it alef_lam_lam_heh-ar and it should be added to the rlig feature. But Glyphs still didn’t generate the feature rule for me. Possibly a bug.

I’m sorry, I forgot, but I have to say that the marks works for me after I follow your advice about not making them a “ligature” but only “marks”.

And for allh-ar and the other ligature, I’ve changed the whole principle and added them manually to the “rlig”, and it’s works fine.

Thank you Georg and mekkablue, you’re really of the best supporters I’ve ever deal with on the web.

BTW, fdf2 is not the same, it lacks the “alef”, so the alef is the regular and the rest is ligature, which is not good, so I made the whole word as a ligature.

here’s the difference:

Not sure about uniFDF2. According to the Unicode Names List, it has the following decomposition:

APPROX 0627 0644 0644 0647

So, uniFDF2 does contain alef. Or did you mean it the other way around? Sorry in case I misunderstood you.

Ah, or do you mean the superscript alef on top of the shadda?

I added the code allah substitution to the feature code generator.

Dear mekkablue
I’m sure you’re right about uniFDF2, after all you are the expert.
But 99% of the fonts I dealt with keep the “alef” as it is and replace the rest with one glyph, which give (usually) a strange look.
I mean the uniFDF2 glyph turn into “lam-lam-heh” only.

Dear Georg
About the post#18, did you mean that you add new feature to the program because of me, that’s amazing. Thank you.

Yes ;)