On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Keith Packard wrote:

> Around 12 o'clock on Oct 18, Jungshik Shin wrote:

> > One possible explanation is that Code2000 isn't marked as supporting 'ko'
> > in font-cache for some reason while Ngulim is.

  This explanation only makes sense when those two chars are NOT
included in the blank glyph list, doesn't it?  As I wrote, they've have
been in the blank glyph list in my fonts.conf since early September.

  Hmm, things are getting more interesting. After I removed Ngulim.ttf
from my font path and then put it back (I ran fc-cache before testing),
suddenly Mozilla picks up U+1160 glyph from Code2000. The same is true of
'gedit' when Code2000 is specified as a font to use. Is it at the
whim of electrons whirling around inside my computer :-) ?


> If your font specification includes language, this would cause Ngulim to
> be preferred over Code2000 if both are added to the pattern in the config
> file.  If the application explicitly names 'Code2000' as a family name,
> then the language shouldn't matter.

  The page in question (http://jshin.net/i18n/korean/hunmin.html
and http://jshin.net/i18n/korean/hunmin_comp.html) specifies font-family
to be CODE2000 explicitly with CSS. I assume this will make Mozilla with
Xft enabled ask fontconfig for that font explicitly.

  As for Pango(gedit), I'm less certain because I don't know whether
Pango specifies language when sending  fonts request down(or up) the
road.

  Therefore, my original mystery still remains a mystery :-)

> Code2000 isn't marked as supporting Korean as it is missing a large number
> of Han glyphs, totalling some 3136 characters from the KSC 5601-1992
> encoding.  Many Korean documents will not be completely covered by this

  Sorry I didn't check Han glyphs only checking that it has the full set
of precomposed Hangul syllables(11,172 of them.). As I suggested before, a
kind of multi-level orthography check may be necessary to cope with situations
like this. Or, would it be possible for users to override manually
what fontconfig *detects* (both code range coverage and lang) in
fonts.conf as suggested in my prev. email?

   Jungshik

_______________________________________________
Fonts mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts

Reply via email to