Closing quotation mark when font family is Noto Sans CJK HK

English
#1

Version: 7.6.4.1 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: 60(Build:1)
CPU threads: 2; OS: Linux 6.1; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3
Locale: en-US (en_US.utf8); UI: en-US
7.6.4-1
Calc: threaded

.odt and .ott in the writing here use Noto Sans CJK HK font family for custom text body paragraph style.
I observe that in this case the closing quotation mark gets printed in different way than I used to have it. It means white space of remarkable width preceding the mark.

Is this the expected behaviour of this font family?
Any way exist to get usual printing of closing quotation mark in case of Noto Sans CJK HK font family - no preceding white space?

Noto Sans CJK HK font family was chosen because it imitates the font of reference document very well and it was hard to find out the name of font family in reference document.
Document is planned for distribution only as a print-out to PDF.

Untitled 1.odt (15.1 KB)

#2

In which language is the target document written?

As described in this Wikipedia article, there are many quotation marks conventions. The most common one is called “66-99” but your sample seems to use “99-66”.

I tried to have a look at Noto Sans CJK HK U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK but the font is created in a format not supported by FontForge. Apparently, the space at left is inherent to the glyph. This makes me suspect that font designers relied on the LEFT in the name to assume this would always be an opening quote, ignoring the alternate “99-66” convention.

Also, the font name with “CJK” and “HK” suggests the font is mainly intended to render Chinese ideograms in Hong-Kong variant where non-Chinese quotes use the “66-99” convention (therefore the added left space looks legitimate).

What is important here: bulk text or quotation marks? Can you provide an example (a screenshot can be sufficient)?

#3

In the particular case here quotation mark is just a mean to express content. Content/Message has priority.

7-02
7-02730×103 16.5 KB

#4

It seems then you are writing in English. The typographical convention is “66-99” while your sample incorrectly shows “66-66”.

You didn’t answer to the look question: do you want to imitate mainly text appearance or quote appearance? This would guide the font choice.

#5

Applies to other type of quoting as well:
3-46

Text appearance has priority. Blank space left to
quotation closing mark is unusual for document language - it will irritate document readers. But used font family mimics nearly perfectly font in reference document while it was not possible to find out the exact name of font in latter one.

#6

The solution is to adhere strictly to “66-99” quotation rule, i.e. use U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK for closing quote instead of U+201C. Similarly, use U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK for single quotes.

#7

This problem have already discussed for a long time, but it’s still somewhat unresolved.

Problem with full-width (asian) punctuation

#8

Unicode 16.0 made new definitions for four quotation marks encoded in General Punctuation block, in which they could reproduce fullwidth from if they are accomplished with U+FE01.

So as my suggestion, LibreOffice should make such combinations rendered with Asian text font.

#9

Don’t use multiple answers for same contribution (all the more when it does not look like a solution: mentioning another question which does not seem to be the exact same problem should not be reported as an answer). Posts in AskLO can always be edited and modified. This site is not a forum: posts are not locked once you emit them.

You suggest using Unicode variation selectors (U+FE00-U+FE0F). Unfortunately, they are not managed in Writer. See bug tdf#150398 (though related to a different context).

#10

In addition, I think you can submit issue to its repositery to add this feature, so you’ll not think of font rendering issues in LibreOffice.

#11

Once again you violate this site convention. I repeat: it is not a forum. There are 3 types of contributions: questions, answers (for solutions) and comments for everything else. The main difference with a forum is answers can be reordered according to “relevance” and you lose chronological order which makes understanding the development/evolution of the discussion very difficult. Comments keep their chronological order and can be attached to the question or answers to clarify details in them.

By not following conventions, you degrade this topic value by falsely suggesting there are several alternate solutions.

1 Like

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.