> James Kass wrote:
> > A few details; You can not use neither Arial Unicode MS nor
> > Code 2000 to
> Code2000 is OpenType. Don't know about Code 2000.
Ooops. Sorry about the typo.
> Most TrueType and OpenType fonts are pure Unicode fonts and have
> been all along. Font specs say that ISO-8859-01 should be
> included for
Actually, I am referring to fonts that has a OS/2 ulCodePageRange1 and
ulCodePageRange2 field set to zero. That is, OpenType fonts that are marked
as supporting various Unicode sub-ranges, but no code pages at all. (I
should have use the term "no-code-page fonts").
> back. compat. like in font viewers that display the name of the font
> in its own typeface. How can "Mangal" be displayed without
> the glyphs? How can a user with Mangal active type in a URL which
> begins "http://"?
Windows defaults to a more appropriate font if you select one that can not
show a particular language (well, there is much more to it than that, but
you get the idea). For example, Latha does not contain Latin characters.
Still, you can use it to write English text.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 07:03:16 EDT