From: Marco Cimarosti (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 04:42:10 EDT
Peter Constable wrote:
> >> then *any* font having a unicode cmap is a Unicode font.
> >No, not if the glyps (for the "supported characters") are
> >inappropriate for the characters given.
> Kent is quite right here. There are a *lot* of fonts out
> there with Unicode
> cmaps that do not at all conform to the Unicode standard ---
> custom-encoded (some call them "hacked") fonts, usually abusing the
> characters that make up Windows cp1252.
IMHO, you are confusing two very different things here:
1) Assigning arbitrary glyphs to some Unicode characters. E.g., assigning
the "$" character to long S; the ASCII letters to Greek letters; the whole
Latin-1 range to Devanagari characters, etc.
2) Choosing strange or unorthodox glyph variants for some Unicode
The "hacked fonts" you mention are case (1); what is being discussed in this
thread is case (2). Like it or not, superscript e *is* the same diacritic
that later become "Ę", so there is absolutely no violation of the Unicode
standard. Of course, this only applies German.
The fact that umlaut and dieresis have been unified in Unicode, makes such a
variant glyph only applicable to a font targeted to German. You could not
use that font to, e.g., typeset English or French, because the "Ę" in
"co÷peration" or "na´ve" is a dieresis, not an umlaut sign.
There are other cases out there of Unicode fonts suitable for Chinese but
not Japanese, Italian but not Polish, Arabic but not Urdu, etc. Why should
a Unicode font suitable for German but not for English be any worse?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 05:35:21 EDT