Erik van der Poel wrote:
> However, since the external info isn't good enough, we will probably
> have to look inside the fonts to see which glyphs they really have (or
> don't have). Witness the recent addition of the euro glyph to several
> fonts. (Is that a good example?)
I don't know; it's a hard problem. The trouble is that there is
no way to tell generic 10646 fonts from script-specific fonts
which are encoded in 10646 because there's no other reasonable
way to do it (e.g. Ethiopic fonts).
On the one hand, if a user goes to the trouble of specifying a
10646 font, that choice should be respected, without attempting
to grab random glyphs from other fonts.
On the other hand, a 10646 font may lack a specific character or
two that are available in some other font, and the user would be
better off seeing something other than the empty box.
On the gripping hand ...?
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:43 EDT