> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > And it is easy for Joe User to make a simple (visual...)
> > substitution cipher by just swiching to a font with the
> > glyphs for letters (etc.) permuted. Sure! I think it
> > would be a bad idea to call it a "Unicode font" though...
> > (That it technically may have a "unicode cmap" is beside
> > my point.)
>
> The only meaning that I can attach to the expression "Unicode
> font" is a
> pan-Unicode font: a font which covers all the scripts in Unicode.
>
> If this is what you mean,
No. (No current font technology can handle that b.t.w., them
having a limit of 64 Ki glyphs...; you'd need to one way or
another coalesce several fonts. Or do something very neat
for CJK...)
> But if by "Unicode font" you just mean a font which is
> compliant with the
> Unicode standard, but only supports one or more of the
> scripts,
Yes, including that the glyphs are "recognisably correct"
for the given characters.
> then *any* font having a unicode cmap is a Unicode font.
No, not if the glyps (for the "supported characters") are
inappropriate for the characters given.
> In this sense, what is or is not appropriate depends on the
> font's style and
> targeted usages and languages: there are fonts which don't
> have dots over
> "i" and "j";
You have a slight point there, but those are not intended for
running text. And I'm hesitant to label them "Unicode fonts".
> fonts where U+0059 and U+03A5 look different;
Of course, those aren't even in the same script (though they are
similarlooking).
> fonts where
> U+0061, U+0251, U+03B1 and U+FF41 look identical;
So?
> fonts where capital and small letters look identical...
If you want small caps, or capitals, via the font, yes.
(But that should not be the default 'mode', should it?)
> Why can't there be a Fraktur font where "�" and "a^e" look
> identical, if
"�" and "a^e" look different even in Fraktur... Maybe the use
of "�" in Fraktur is a beast, but that is beside my point.
> this is appropriate for that typographical style and for the
> usages and languages intended for the font?
Of course you can have such a font. You can have any font
you like. But I would not label it a Unicode font (regardless
if there is a Unicode cmap, in a particular subset of font
technologies, or not; bugs nothwithstanding). Talking about
this particular subset of font technologies, maybe interested
parties (not me) should lobby for a new font feature for this.
But do you really want a font feature for this? Is it worth
the cost? (I'd just do some global substitutions; or put that
in a little special-purpose utility somewhere.)
/Kent K
> Ciao.
> Marco
