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 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT