Re: Character identities

From: David Starner (
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 17:35:52 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Character identities"

    On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:36:08PM -0700, John Hudson wrote:
    > >On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
    > ><...>
    > >> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
    > >> shouldn't worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard
    > >> book fonts
    > Hello? Who says decorative or handwriting fonts can't be Unicode fonts?
    > Or are you working with some definition of 'Unicode font' other than 'font
    > with a Unicode cmap'?

    Right above where it was cut it said:

    > A U+0308 (COMBINING DIAERESIS) should remain a U+0308,
    > regardless that the corresponding glyph *looks* like U+0364
    > SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304
    > another font, and it looks like two five-pointed start
    > side-by-side in a
    > third font, and it looks like Mickey Mouse's ears in <Disney.ttf>...
    > These are all unacceptable variations in a *Unicode font (in
    > default mode)*.


    > there are fonts which don't have dots over "i" and "j";

    > You have a slight point there, but those are not intended for
    > running text. And I'm hesitant to label them "Unicode fonts".

    Given that definition of Unicode fonts, a number of decorative or
    handwriting fonts (though fewer than I expected) are arbitrarily
    excluded from being Unicode fonts.

    David Starner -
    Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
    A field where a thousand corpses lie. 
      -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 18:22:13 EST