On 11/22/97 12:11 PM, Gwidon S. Naskrent (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>Being rather new to the list and the Unicode topic, I'd like
>nonetheless to enquire why...
>...among the glyphs found on the gifs on the Unicode pages, some
>characters look fine, but others OTOH look like crude drawings? Eg.
>the glyphs numbered 047A-047E from the Cyrillic block, as opposed
>to the basic Cyrillic alphabet.. For this reason they cannot be
>directly scanned and included into a font, but a new glyph must be
>constructed from scratch. This does not facilitate making fonts,
>especially with glyphs never seen before
Wearing my shake-my-finger-and-say-no-no hat:
The glyphs used by the Consortium in printing the book and on the code
chart pages aren't intended to be the raw material which people scan in
and turn into fonts. Rather, we've been dependent on the generosity of a
number of font vendors who made their products available to us. If you
want to use the glyphs we show as a *template* to determine how to make
your own font, but it really isn't proper -- and may be illegal -- to
simply copy the glyphs from our gifs into font files.
The problem is fundamentally that the various characters come from
different sources and the sources are of different quality. Some of them
*we* scanned in and turned into fonts. :-)
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT