On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 03:44:18PM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote: > Usually, users are prefectly able to pick the fonts manually that have the > coverage and style they really need, and if a glyph is missing from that > font, it will typically also not be readable for the user. Mixing fonts > automatically can lead often to far more ugly results than had the > application just stuck with a single font and used its default glyph for > everything missing.
What about U+2000-U+27BE? There's a lot characters in there that your average user would want to see correctly, but might not be in their fonts. The number forms, the arrows, some of the math symbols, the currency symbols, the superscripts and subscripts, the general punctuation, the enclosed alphanumerics, the miscellaneous symbols, and the dingbats could easily show up one by one in random English text, and be stuff that the user would want displayed. And most of them wouldn't suffer that much from coming from a different font. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
