Re: A (hopefully non-trivial) question

From: John Cowan (
Date: Mon Nov 24 1997 - 10:50:31 EST

Gwidon S. Naskrent wrote:
> ...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..

Note the remark on page 6-18:

# Since the historic Cyrillic characters encoded in Unicode (U+0460
# -> U+0486) rarely occur in modern form, these letters are shown in
# the charts in an archaic font. A complete Old Cyrillic set would
# be obtained by rendering the whole Cyrillic section (that is,
# U+0400 -> U+0486) in that same style.

You should not, therefore, expect font consistency in a case such
as this. Similar comments apply to the conflict between
the upper-case Xucuri forms in the Georgian block vs. the
(implicit-lower-case) Mxedruli forms; to display proper
Xucuri bicameral text, a full Xucuri font with both upper and
lower case is required.

John Cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT