Re: OpenType vs TrueType (was current version of unicode-font)

From: James Kass (
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 19:24:24 CST

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: OpenType vs TrueType (was current version of unicode-font)"

    Christopher Fynn wrote,

    > Large "Pan-Unicode" fonts like "Arial Unicode MS" usually do not contain
    > proper OpenType tables and ligatures for *all* the scripts the font
    > covers. For example "Arial Unicode MS" and "Code 2000" contain glyphs
    > for Tibetan script but they *do not* contain the OpenType GSUB and GPOS
    > lookups necessary to display Tibetan correctly.

    Code2000 does not contain Tibetan glyphs. But, Code2000 *is*
    an OpenType font and has *many* OpenType tables in it which
    help to support several of the complex scripts which the font
    does cover -- like Tamil, Bengali, and Devanagari.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 19:23:22 CST