Re: glyph selection for Unicode in browsers

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 10:52:12 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: glyph selection for Unicode in browsers"

    On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote:

    > Yes, underlying fonts can be a Unicode architecture. That's a good
    > thing, but invisible to end-users.
    > 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.
    > Yes, OS and browsers are getting better. My concerns center around:
    > Is the mechanism for selecting fallback fonts language-sensitive, so
    > that it would favor a Japanese font for Unicode Han characters that were
    > tagged as lang:ja

      I'm a little at loss as to why you have the impression
    that 'lang' tag has little effect on rendering of html (in
    UTF-8. e.g. your page or IUC10 announcement page which used to be at by major browsers. MS
    IE has been making use of 'lang' attribute(html) for a long time and
    Mozilla solved the problem (although 'xml:lang' is not yet supported)
    last December. In case of Mozilla(and Netscape 7), see (fixed.
       where you'll find a pair of screenshots with dramatically
       different rendering results)
          (xml:lang : not yet fixed) (C-L http header
         and UTF-8 document)

    > And are the fonts labeled so that the supported language is known?

      Judging from the discussion about the issue in Xfree86-font
    list, most of modern OTFs are. Otherwise, applications (or a library
    for text rendering/font selection) can resort to a kind of mapping the
    character repertoire of a font to language(s) covered as is done by
    fontconfig for XFree86. For instance, characters in JIS X 0208 are all
    covered, but characters from GB2312, Big5 and KS X 1001 are missing,
    a font is likely to be Japanese.

    > Even so, I'd still need to have a large collection of fonts then.

      Indeed that's the case. If OT lang-tag is made use of and
    multiple alternative glyphs are available in a single(or
    a few) pan-script Unicode font(s), you'd not have to.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 11:46:31 EDT