Re: glyph selection for Unicode in browsers

Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 15:17:41 EDT

  • Next message: "RE: glyph selection for Unicode in browsers"

    On 09/26/2002 12:52:13 PM Tex Texin wrote:

    >I would like to keep the sense of "Unicode font" as meaning a font which
    >supports a large number of scripts, rather than meaning one that uses
    >Unicode for its mapping architecture.

    I suppose you didn't happen to attend session at a number of past Unicode
    conferences (not this last one, though) in which folks from Monotype
    presented on this these. In general, font developers don't recommend the
    idea of a single font that covers "all of Unicode" (it's not possible, BTW,
    given the 64K glyph limit). There are a variety of reasons for this. Even
    so, people keep looking for them.

    As for terminology, "Unicode font" is too ambiguous for the reasons Markus
    mentioned having to do with cmaps. You may be far more concerned with
    comprehensive coverage, but that isn't necessarily everyone's concern. In
    my work, I have to deal far more with fonts that use different encodings
    than I do with fonts that have comprehensive coverage. I much prefer to
    refer to comprehensive-coverage fonts as "pan-Unicode" fonts, and for the
    other issue, to refer to "Unicode-encoded" or "Unicode-conformant" (as
    opposed to custom-encoded) fonts.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485
    E-mail: <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 15:57:18 EDT