Keith Packard wrote:
I got the European coverage information from
http://www.everytype.com/alphabets
I can't find www.everytype.com in the DNS, is that a typo ?
I'm curious because I can't understand the differences between
xc/lib/fontconfig/fc-lang/en.orth and
On Sat, 2002-07-06 at 13:34, Keith Packard wrote:
My plan is to have fonts advertise the complete set of languages that they
cover, and then to allow them to further distinguish languages with
country codes as needed (zh-TW vs zh-CN).
Now matching can take place using the language tags;
At 10:34 AM 7/7/02 +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Keith Packard wrote:
I got the European coverage information from
http://www.everytype.com/alphabets
I can't find www.everytype.com in the DNS, is that a typo ?
Try http://www.evertype.com/alphabets/index.html
I'm curious
Around 23 o'clock on Jul 7, Roger So wrote:
Certainly; but have you considered the case that zh-HK and zh-MO users
prefer zh-TW fonts over zh-CN fonts, and vice versa for zh-SG? (What
other Chinese-speaking regions are there... perhaps zh-MY?)
Yes, each language-country pair may specify
Around 11 o'clock on Jul 7, David Starner wrote:
My question here is, since it's clear that fr.orth was written with an eye
to supporting Latin-1 fonts, why wasn't en.orth written to support ASCII
fonts? I have quite a few fonts that were made for English use and only
cover ASCII, and using
These aren't that useful, but
vo (Volapük): a ä b c d e f g h i j k i m n o ö p r s t u ü v x y z.
0041-0050
0052-0056
0058-005A
0061-0070
0072-0076
0078-007A
00C4
00D6
00DC
00E4
00F6
00FC
Punctuation (not listed for Dutch?) is the same as German.
As the estimates I've read list maybe 10
Roger So wrote:
And of course, many fonts from China now cover most characters defined
in GB18030, which means if using coverage tables, these fonts will
appear to support both zh-CN and zh-TW...
Why appear to ?
--
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[EMAIL
At 11:46 AM 7/7/02 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
That's a fine question; I did prune the non-Latin1 glyphs from fr.orth to
match existing Latin1 fonts, but I left the non-ASCII glyphs in the
coverage because I have no ASCII-only fonts and didn't realize there still
were some in the wild. I suppose
Around 6 o'clock on Jul 8, Roger So wrote:
Actually, if the font is a proper certified GB18030 font, then
simplified characters will have simplified glyphs, and traditional
characters traditional glyphs. (Han unification didn't unify simplified
and traditional characters, fortunately [or
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Keith Packard wrote:
The question is whether we should mark certified GB18030 fonts as suitable
for zh-TW as well as zh-CN. I have the GB18030 varient of SimSun here in
TrueType and it does not have the traditional Chinese codePageRange bit
set, but does cover the
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002, Keith Packard wrote:
Actually, if the font is a proper certified GB18030 font, then
simplified characters will have simplified glyphs, and traditional
characters traditional glyphs. (Han unification didn't unify simplified
and traditional characters, fortunately [or
Around 12 o'clock on Jul 8, Edward Lee wrote:
The question is whether we should mark certified GB18030 fonts as suitable
for zh-TW as well as zh-CN. I have the GB18030 varient of SimSun here in
TrueType and it does not have the traditional Chinese codePageRange bit
set, but does
12 matches
Mail list logo
