Re: metric for block coverage

2018-03-08 15:18 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org>: > Le 17/02/2018 à 23:18, Adam Borowski via Unicode a écrit : > >> Of course, this measure is only rough. A counter example is in the >> monetary symbol block, where € U+20AC EURO SIGN (in Unicode since 2.1) is >>

Re: metric for block coverage

Hi !    I’ll just add two points to the various points raised in the previous conversation about block coverage : Le 17/02/2018 à 23:18, Adam Borowski via Unicode a écrit : Hi! As a part of Debian fonts team work, we're trying to improve fonts review: ways to organize them, add metadata,

Re: metric for block coverage

I agree that the 'dlng' is far better than this old legacy bitset (which was defined in a time where all Unicode was in the BMP, and the envisioned CJK extended blocks outside the BMP were assumed to be handled by the bits defined for CJK). At least 'dlng' is intended to indicate if a font

RE: metric for block coverage

You have clarified what exactly the usage is; you've only asked what it means to cover a script. James Kass mentioned a font's OS/2 table. That is obsolete: as Khaled pointed out, there has never been a clear definition of "supported" and practice has been inconsistent. Moreover, the available

Re: metric for block coverage

> On Feb 18, 2018, at 3:26 , Khaled Hosny via Unicode > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:14:46AM -0800, James Kass via Unicode wrote: >> Adam Borowski wrote, >> >>> I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts. >>> It's probably

Re: metric for block coverage

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:13:16 + "Dreiheller, Albrecht via Unicode" wrote: > Could someone please supply an example (web link ...) for usage of > danda / double danda in Tamil? Thanks, Albrecht Take your pick from http://www.prapatti.com/slokas/slokasbyname.html . Do they

Re: metric for block coverage

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:02:28 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > This pair of punctuation should have been considered since long as > common punctuations (independantly of their assigned names), i.e. > assigned the script property "Comn" and not "Deva". I don't see why

Re: metric for block coverage

This pair of punctuation should have been considered since long as common punctuations (independantly of their assigned names), i.e. assigned the script property "Comn" and not "Deva". I don't see why they could not be used in non-indic scripts (because they are not semantically equivalent to

Re: metric for block coverage

On 2018-02-18 12:10, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: >> It's only a single bit without a meaning beyond "range is considered >> functional". No "basic coverage" vs "good coverage" vs "full >> coverage". > It's worse than that when a script uses characters primarily > associated with

Re: metric for block coverage

Better heuristics of the coverage by a font of a human script sound useful, but don’t the standards discourage using codepoint blocks for determining whether a character belongs to the repertoire of a human language or script? Although the specification authors try to arrange characters into

Re: metric for block coverage

For Latin, usually looking for the coverage of Vietnamese works quite well... except for African languages that need additional uncommon Latin letters (open o, open e, alpha, some turned/mirrored/stroked letters), in which case you should look also for IPA coverage (but you may missing their

Re: metric for block coverage

The most useful feature for me (Debian user, linguist) would be a search system where I can provide a string, and filter fonts to those who include glyphs for all characters; ideally if I could also combine it with other search criteria, like OTF features (true small caps, etc.). I often write

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 3:42 AM Adam Borowski wrote: > I probably used a bad example: scripts like Cyrillic (not even Supplement) > include both essential letters and those which are historic only or used by > old folks in a language spoken by 1000, who use Russian (or

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:05:29 +0100 Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:14:46AM -0800, James Kass wrote: > > You probably already know that basic script coverage information is > > stored internally in OpenType fonts in the OS/2 table. > > > >

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18 2018 at 17:33 CET, e...@gnu.org writes: >> Cc: unicode-requ...@unicode.org >> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:35:00 +0100 >> From: "Janusz S. Bień via Unicode" >> >> As a Debian user using some rare characters for old Polish >> transliteration I would be happy with

Re: metric for block coverage

> Cc: unicode-requ...@unicode.org > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:35:00 +0100 > From: "Janusz S. Bień via Unicode" > > As a Debian user using some rare characters for old Polish > transliteration I would be happy with a tool which scans > available/installed fonts for a specific

Re: metric for block coverage

> +1 if the font has all the glyphs in the range should be > +1 if the font has all the glyphs needed for the range

Re: metric for block coverage

Adam Borowski wrote, > It's only a single bit without a meaning beyond "range is considered > functional". No "basic coverage" vs "good coverage" vs "full coverage". > ... > These codepoints can then be grouped by block -- but interpreting such lists > is what's unobvious. Compare the number of

Re: metric for block coverage

Adam Borowski wrote, > What I'm thinking, is that a beautiful font that covers Russian, Ukrainian, > Serbian, Kazakh, Mongolian cyr, etc., should be recommended to users before > one whose only grace is including every single codepoint.

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:14:46AM -0800, James Kass wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote, > > I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts. > > It's probably reasonable to do this per Unicode block. Also, it's a safe > > assumption that a font which doesn't know a codepoint

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:36:22AM +, David Starner wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:30 PM Adam Borowski via Unicode < > unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > þ or ą count the same as LATIN TURNED CAPITAL > LETTER SAMPI WITH HORNS AND TAIL WITH SMALL LETTER X WITH CARON. > > þ is in Latin-1, and

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:14:46AM -0800, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote, > > > I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts. > > It's probably reasonable to do this per Unicode block. Also, it's a safe > > assumption that a font which doesn't

Re: metric for block coverage

> OpenType fonts also include script coverage information in the > OpenType tables. A font with an OpenType table for a script would be > likely to have at least some complex script shaping abilities for that > script. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/chapter2#slTbl_sRec

Re: metric for block coverage

Adam Borowski wrote, > I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts. > It's probably reasonable to do this per Unicode block. Also, it's a safe > assumption that a font which doesn't know a codepoint can do no complex > shaping of such a glyph, thus looking at just

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:30 PM Adam Borowski via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > þ or ą count the same as LATIN TURNED CAPITAL LETTER SAMPI WITH HORNS AND TAIL WITH SMALL LETTER X WITH CARON. þ is in Latin-1, and ą is in Latin-A; the first is essential, even in its marginal characters,