From: David Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 17:35:52 EST
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:36:08PM -0700, John Hudson wrote:
> >On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <email@example.com> 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
> (COMBINING LATIN
> SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304
> (COMBINING MACRON) in
> 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 - firstname.lastname@example.org 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