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
>> muc
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, pi
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 support
ean that the fonts are useful for an
English speaker. This is why the 'dlng' entry in the 'meta' table was created.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Adam Borowski
via Unicode
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:1
> 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 reasonable to do this per Unico
t I didn't
find some.
Albrecht
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] Im Auftrag von Richard
Wordingham via Unicode
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 21:13
An: unicode@unicode.org
Betreff: Re: metric for block coverage
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018
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 meet your requirement
Could someone please supply an example (web link ...) for usage of danda /
double danda in Tamil?
Thanks, Albrecht
Von: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] Im Auftrag von Bobby de Vos
via Unicode
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Februar 2018 15:58
An: unicode@unicode.org
Betreff: Re: metric for
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
> they could not be u
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
Latin
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 another
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 cod
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
associ
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
aca
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 English...) for
> all compu
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.
> >
> > https://docs.microsoft.com
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 a tool which scans
>>
> 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 list of characters an
> +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
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
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.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/ch
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 c
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 ą
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 kno
> 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
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 co
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, an
Hi!
As a part of Debian fonts team work, we're trying to improve fonts review:
ways to organize them, add metadata, pick which fonts are installed by
default and/or recommended to users, etc.
I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts.
It's probably reasonable to do
28 matches
Mail list logo
