Bulgarian Cyrillic is Russian Cyrillic

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Set bulgarian cyrillic in a bulgarian enviroment

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Bulgarian cyrillic differs from Russian cyrillic. 
In Noto 1.04 there are only Russian cyrillic characters. Bulgarian cyrillic is 
missing at the corresponding unicodes.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Version 1.04 uh. OSX 10.9.4

Please provide any additional information below.
See screenshot for a small example of differences between Bulgarian and Russian 
cyrillic.
For more information on Bulgarian Cyrillic see also:
http://www.imagecontext.com/?p=12&l=2&id=74

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 22 Jul 2014 at 1:43

Attachments:

• bulgarian.png

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

In Bulgaria both glyph variants are used. I wouldn't say either is more common, 
more known or more Bulgarian. The so called Bulgarian Cyrillic is a font design 
trend that started in the 1960s in Bulgaria and it doesn't make all previous 
(i.e. identical to the Russian glyphs) Cyrillic font usage any less Bulgarian. 
Ideally it would be nice to have both variants as different fonts, e.g. the 
more (internationally) common glyphs in the default fonts (Noto Sans and Noto 
Serif) as they are now and separate fonts Noto Sans Bulgarian and Noto Serif 
Bulgarian with the Bulgarian glyphs instead. Having the default fonts use the 
Bulgarian glyphs for Bulgarian would be just annoying as many people prefer the 
international glyph set. In addition, the Bulgarian glyphs are gaining 
popularity in Russia so having them as a separate font will make it easy for 
people to choose.

Original comment by [email protected] on 5 Aug 2014 at 8:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think Pavel provides an excellent summary of the situation. I might add: 

1. Using the terms "Russian Cyrillic" vs. "Bulgarian Cyrillic" is a bit of a 
misnomer. The Cyrillic script is used to write more than 50 languages, 
including large languages such as Russian (167M speakers), Ukrainian (36M), 
Uzbek (22M), Serbian, Kazakh and Bulgarian (8M each), Tajiki (4M) Belarussian 
and Kyrgyz (3M each) and many others. At least several countries where Cyrillic 
is a majority script have an active type design community (Russia, Ukraine, 
Serbia, Bulgaria), and the number of Cyrillic-based language users in Central 
Asia also makes it a notable community. 

2. It is true that the current mainstream Cyrillic type design follows the 
model which was initially based on the "civil type" reform by Russian tsar 
Peter I, and was heavily influenced in the 20th century by the predominance of 
the Soviet Union as both a very large market for Cyrillic type and an important 
centre of Cyrillic type design. Instead of "Russian", I would call them 
"traditional" or, as Pavel proposes "international". 

3. It is also true that the so-called "Bulgarian" letterform model has been 
proposed by a group of Bulgarian designers in the 1960s, and has recently been 
gaining new popularity from a group of younger "digital" Bulgarian type 
designers. But I agree with Pavel that this model is potentially useful and of 
interest for more than just Bulgarian language. All these forms are readable 
for any Cyrillic script user (though may seem unorthodox or uncommon). They're 
not tied to any language in particular, and are not the majority of forms used 
in Bulgaria, but are more a stylistic variant, and, in my view, are actually 
useful. But it does seem indeed that in Bulgaria, the number of readers for 
whom these forms are preferred or at least acceptable, is largest among all 
Cyrillic-using countries. 

4. At this point, I think it would make sense to include the Bulgarian forms as 
stylistic alternates or stylistic sets of the primary Cyrillic glyphs. I'm not 
sure if they would make sense as "localized forms" for the Bulgarian (BGR) 
language, as some Bulgarian speakers may actually still prefer the traditional 
forms. 

5. I should add that some of the most recent Windows system fonts (such as 
Calibri Light) do include the Bulgarian forms as "localized forms for 
Bulgarian". So perhaps it would make sense to include them. 

6. I should mention that potentially, there are many more glyphs in Latin and 
Cyrillic glyph sets of Noto where localized variants would be useful. I'm not 
entirely sure if creating separate fonts with all these combinations as default 
would make sense, but it's up to you. I certainly see no harm in releasing 
"Noto Sans BGR" and "Noto Serif BGR" in addition of mapping the Bulgarian forms 
as either localized forms or stylistic sets (using OpenType Layout features 
"locl", "ssXX" and "salt") in the main fonts. 

Best,
Adam Twardoch

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 2:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hello,

I made a Bulgarian cyrillic copy of Noto Serif. In the attached image you can 
check the differences between Bulgarian and Russian cyrillic.

It will be great if you include the Bulgarian cyrillic in Noto family.

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 12:16

Attachments:

• bg-ru_dif.png
• noto-serif-bulgarian.zip

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Danail,
many thanks for the BGC version of Noto family. 
Definitely appreciation of the Noto family!

About your screenshot, it seems that the upper K is different in BGC? It got 
this nice "round bend", but it’s not marked green. :)

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 1:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Adam, 
your description is not quite right. The so-called Bulgarian forms were not a 
"proposal" in the 1960s, the are a result of a big research about the cyrillic 
script in the Middle Ages and how would the possible cyrillic script 
development look like during the Renaissance and in the modern time. The 
problem was and still is that the reform of Petar I was some kind of quick and 
dirty job how can we make cyrillic printable and more compared to latin script.
So the group leaded by Prof. Vassil Iounchev decided to go back to the origin 
and make a logical simulation.
There are als arguments like using Small Caps with the russian forms looks bad 
because there is no difference between upper-  and lowercase

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 4:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Stefan,
 I would like to make a small correction the serifs in the bulgarian И и look also different.

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 4:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 4:34

Attachments:

• [Bildschirmfoto 2014-10-25 um 18.32.09.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/noto/issue-89/comment-8/Bildschirmfoto 2014-10-25 um 18.32.09.png)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Something important – in Bulgaria we live in a moment of some kind of 
'critical mass' of Bulgarian Cyrillic Model. There is a big hunger for diverse 
fonts, containing the glyphs of the Bulgarian Cyrillic. For most of the 
Bulgarians there is indisputable choice when it comes for choosing Russian or 
Bulgarian model, but we are lacking enough affordable fonts with BG Cyrillic, 
especially for web use. There are also a lot of discussions and plans among the 
State institutions how to emerge from the current situation with a social and 
culturally responsible act. Soon it will go public. 

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 4:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I strongly support the idea of adding Bulgarian Cyrillic to the type family. I 
want to point out, that the idea of the so called "Bulgarian Cyrillic" is 
definitely not a vagary of some bizzare group of Bulgarian type designers, but 
quite the contrary - it is (as sad in the previous post) a product of long and 
careful studies about finding a true minuscule form of Cyrillic. A form that is 
harmonic, logically sound and corresponding to the principles of the minuscule 
as writing system (as evident in Latin typefaces), not just scaled down capital 
letters... 

I will not go into detailed explanations about the origins of Bulgarian 
Cyrillic, nor will I start a discussion Russian vs. Bulgarian form of Cyrillic. 
I just want to mention, that the Bulgarian Cyrillic is of growing popularity 
these days, and is gaining "critical mass" as we speak, so i believe that it is 
sound decision, business-wise, to add such alternates/variant to your family.

I will also refer you to the following resources and type foundries dealing 
with Bulgarian Cyrillic, for further reference:

+A nice overview of Bulgarian and Russian Cyrillic 
http://cyrillicsly.com/

+Bulgaria's biggest type foundry with lots of good examples
https://www.hermessoft.com/

+Some more interesting type designers working with Bulgarian Cyrillic
Kateliev - http://www.kateliev.com/
Gruev - http://moire.info/
Zlatkov - https://www.behance.net/rand0mabstract
Jelev - https://www.behance.net/epixs
....

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 5:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Here are some interesting examples, that i could find easily on the web:
Example of Bulgarian versions of Myriad and Rotis Semi Serif

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 5:08

Attachments:

• KaMyriadPro_2-1.jpg
• KaMyriadPro_2-2.jpg
• KaMyriadPro3.jpg
• KaRotis-2.jpg
• KaRotis-3.jpg

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Some Specimens of Bulgarian typefaces:
Basil by Kateliev (Granshan 2014 Cyrillic text - special mention award)
Helen by Hermessoft (Helvetica based)
Universum by Hermessoft (Univers based)
...
and etc. see list of sites provided in previous post

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Oct 2014 at 5:25

Attachments:

• A3_Kateliev_Basil_Granshan2014_m08y14_prn.pdf
• Hermessoft_Helen.pdf
• Hermessoft_Universum.pdf

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi guys,
Тhank you for your commitment.

Thomas - my name is Stefan, not Danail, but anyway :). Yes the K is different 
it’s my mistake I didn’t mark it in green.

Botjonik - feel free to make any corrections that will make it look better. You 
can contact me if you need some help.

Right now I’m working on BGC for Noto Sans and will upload it here when 
it’s ready. Hope you keep the interest. :)

Original comment by [email protected] on 26 Oct 2014 at 2:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

FWIW, there also seems to be some interesting information on the topic here: 
http://typophile.com/node/34265

Original comment by [email protected] on 28 Oct 2014 at 5:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Jan 2015 at 6:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Note that the capital Ф in Bulgarian typefaces often looks differently too. 
Namely, its oval might have all the proportions of the О letter.

Original comment by [email protected] on 9 Feb 2015 at 6:29

Attachments:

• pic1_10765.jpg

[behdad]

cc @roozbehp

[vinprom]

Over 1000 Bulgarian and Russian cyrillic fonts free download http://fontsdir.com/c/67/cyrillic-fonts
This is my favorite site.
Enjoy!

[ignisf]

The small letter I with grave (U+045D ѝ) should also be Bulgarianized :)

[lettersoup]

Hi Behdad,

here is what should be done for Bulgarian Cyrillic:

1. List for Sans Fonts:

Д (uni0414) is optional
Л (uni041B)
Ф (uni0424) is optional
в (uni0432)
г (uni0433)
д (uni0434)
ж (uni0436)
з (uni0437)
и (uni0438) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
й (uni0439) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ѝ (uni045D) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
к (uni043A)
л (uni043B)
п (uni043F) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
т (uni0442) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ц (uni0446)
ш (uni0448) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
щ (uni0449) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ю (uni044E)

2. List for Serif Fonts:

Д (uni0414) is optional
И (uni0418)
Й (uni0419)
Ѝ (uni040D)
Л (uni041B)
Ф (uni0424) is optional
в (uni0432)
г (uni0433)
д (uni0434)
ж (uni0436)
з (uni0437)
и (uni0438) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
й (uni0439) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ѝ (uni045D) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
к (uni043A)
л (uni043B)
н (uni043D)
п (uni043F) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
т (uni0442) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ц (uni0446) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ч (uni0447) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ш (uni0448) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
щ (uni0449) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ь (uni044C) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ъ (uni044A) usually there is no need to redesign in Italic
ю (uni044E)

3. Historical Forms they are important for scientific texts and old texts before the speling reform at 1945:

Ѫ (uni046A)
ѫ (uni046B)
Ѣ (uni0462)
ѣ (uni0463)

4. Combining Accents:

Cyrillic Breve (no unicode)
Gravecomb (uni0300)
Acutecomb (uni0301)

All the vowels need top anchors.

Cheers,
Botio

[lettersoup]

I think it make sense to include the Bulgarian Cyrillic as
stylistic alternates /stylistic sets and .loclBGR

[frankrolf]

In my opinion, Bulgarian Cyrillic implemented as stylistic alternates makes little sense, because the differences are not just “stylistic” (also, I have not seen this behavior in any other font). Implementation via the locl feature still seems to be the most reasonable option, repeating the same behavior in another feature is confusing.

[lettersoup]

Hi Frank,
I think it makes sense for two reasons:
— not all the applications support locl
— it will give the opportunity to non-Bulgarian designers to use Bulgarian Cyrillic without switching the spell check of the text they are working on.

Take a look at Calibri Light release 2015. Bulgarian Cyrillic is set as locl and ss06.

[lettersoup]

here is also a short article about the technical issues with BG Cyrillic:
http://www.lettersoup.de/what-shall-be-done-for-bulgarian-cyrillic-loclbgr/

[StefanPeev]

As a publisher I should say that if a font contains features (access to which is not easy or is conected with some kinds of losses) the font is useless. So, I fully agree with Botyo ( @lettersoup) that it makes sense to include the Bulgarian Cyrillic as stylistic alternates /stylistic sets and .loclBGR. Even if it is not the perfect solution, it is the solution which garantees no losses of functionality. It is why the font Scotch Modern by ShinnType (Nick Shinn), which includes Bulgarian as .locl:

feature locl { # Localized Forms
script cyrl; # Cyrillic
language BGR exclude_dflt; # Bulgarian
sub @locl1 by @locl2;
} locl;

is usefull only in one direction – if you think that the Bulgarian Cyrillic is only Bulgarian. And what if a Russian publisher decides to use for some reasons Bulgarian Cyrillic in a book design? Who will tell that it is quite impossible?...

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

This can be available via 'hist' feature

[StefanPeev]

@KrasnayaPloshchad I think it is not a good idea. A lot of Apps doen't understand 'hist' feature.

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

FreeSerif is already implement this variant as a style set, see their documentation.

[lettersoup]

In my opinion it makes no sense to implement "Bulgarian Cyrillic" as 'hist'. "Bulgarian Cyrillic" letterforms are not historical alternates and are used nowadays.

On the other hand there are indeed some historical forms wich i listed already above:

"3. Historical forms they are important for scientific texts and old texts before the spelling reform at 1945:

Ѫ (uni046A)
ѫ (uni046B)
Ѣ (uni0462)
ѣ (uni0463)"

Of course they do belong in the 'hist' feature.

In FreeSerif release 2012 (I think is the last one) "Bulgarian Cyrillic" is implemented just as ss01... but I don`t see the point?

[StefanPeev]

Free Serif in the release 2012 really makes an attempt to implement Bulgarian Cyrillic. And this is the good news. The bad news is that there is no point to look at Bulgarian Cyrillic just as a stylistic whim to somebody. Starting from uni0410 (Cyrillc letter „A“) and ending with uni044F (Cyrillic letter „я“) we need to think for Bulgarian Cyrillic as a unique letterform model. And this is the reason that I prefer this model to be set as default in the range uni0410:uni044F. If somebody needs to have traditional Russian Cyrillic, he could take it through .loclRUS or through Stylictic Set. Or... to find corresponding fonts which consist of only traditional Russian Cyrillic.
There is no reason to think of Bulgarian Cyrillic as something occasional. We need to start thinking that it is the future of the Cyrillic letterform model. And to find out another Peter the Great to finalize the reformation...

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

On this page I found another sample of Bulgarian Cyrillic:

http://www.typography.com/fonts/whitney/features/whitney-language-support

[lettersoup]

A very nice one! I think Hoefler&Co are designing Bulgarian Cyrillic quite a long time...
Very interesting is what Lucas de Groot did in Calibri release 2015. He designed Cyrillic Extended with Bulgarian forms. For some funny reason Microsoft released it just in the Light/LightItalic.
Actually I think that will be the future development in Cyrillic - designing the both forms for the entire script.

[StefanPeev]

This is an attempt to make a systematisation of the local forms in Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian compared to Russian (or better say – international Cyrillic script). I use the font Vollkorn for the presentation of the local features. Please do notice that in Bulgaria are still used both the modern form of Bulgarian Cyrillic script and the traditional form (which is same as Russian Cyrillic or international Cyrillic script). The tables are still a subject of discussion.

[ProjectThreepio]

For what it's worth, the font "Acari Sans" provides an example of what the Bulgarian forms look like in a Sans Serif implementation, similar to Noto Sans.

[StefanPeev]

The oval Cyrillic alphabet has already been codified as an official book standard for printed letters in Bulgaria

The oval form of the Cyrillic alphabet is recognized as official in Bulgaria and is legalized by the Bulgarian Language Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Bulgaria through the online edition of the "Official Spelling Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language". The Bulgarian Language Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is the only institution in Bulgaria that is authorized to be officially responsible for the codification norms of the modern Bulgarian literary language. In the "Bulgarian alphabet" section, for the first time, the printed capital and small letters are represented by an oval form of the Cyrillic alphabet, and this already turns the oval Cyrillic into an official form of the printed alphabet in Bulgaria. It is curious that the website of the publication "Official Spelling Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language" uses the font of the Russian company "Paratype" - PT Serif BGR.