From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2008 - 17:19:20 CDT
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Jonathan Woodburn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Admittedly, Chinese is a huge character set, however, the font is still
> aimed at a low memory footprint.
What's a low memory footprint for you? You can fit about any
Latin-Greek-Cyrillic font on the market in a fraction of the space of
a small Chinese font. The question is why it's worth stressing about a
minimal fragment of the Latin characters, especially as even if you're
just doing English, someone is going to mention Dvořák or the like at
> However, I'm getting the impression that
> perhaps my understanding of Unicode is misinformed (or simply uninformed).
> Is every character not found in a common table for every language (i.e.
> Latin characters + foreign language accents + Cyrillic + chinese, etc...)?
That's one way to describe it.
> If this is
> an exhaustive list, it will be a little tedious to read the HTML Source, but
> will certainly work. :)
It's not an exhaustive list; note that it doesn't include ô, ö, or é
in the English column. Even if you dismiss rôle and coöperate as
archaic, café is still fairly common.
> 1. Are all characters for every language found in a single Unicode
> definition so that U+XXXX can express any character?
Yes and no. You need to support combining characters for some
languages, though none of the languages you're looking at.
> 2. Would it be necessary to create individual fonts for particular
> (non-coexisting) languages?
Again, yes and no. Your languages are fine, but fine typography will
set the accent in Polish and French differently, and Russian and
Serbian italics use a different form for one of the letters, etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 17 2008 - 17:22:14 CDT