On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 10:54, Keith Packard wrote: [...] > Now, the question is whether the gb18030 font should *not* advertise zh-tw > support, and for that I can rely on the codePageRange bits. That seems > sufficient.
I think that's reasonable; a GB18030 font would be a reasonable fallback for zh-*. [...] > > http://www.info.gov.hk/digital21/eng/hkscs/download.html > > Thanks. I notice that the newest part of this table references quite a > few symbols beyond the BMP; would you suggest that I use the older > entries? Or should I use the non-BMP entries and let people only use > fonts with support for those glyphs? This was discussed on the libc-alpha mailing list back in April, under the thread "Unicode 3.2 support": http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-04/threads.html A guy from the IT department of the HK Government was in the discussion, and he stated that the official plan is to provide support for the PUA entries as an interim measure, until the whole system is ready to migrate to use non-BMP entries: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-04/msg00156.html I suspect that it would be troublesome to support non-BMP entries in fontconfig though... -- Roger So Debian Developer Sun Wah Linux Limited i18n/L10n Project Leader Tel: +852 2250 0230 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +852 2259 9112 http://www.sw-linux.com/ _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
