On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:36:08PM -0700, John Hudson wrote: > > >On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font. > ><...> > >> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they > >> shouldn't worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard > >> book fonts > > Hello? Who says decorative or handwriting fonts can't be Unicode fonts? [...] > Or are you working with some definition of 'Unicode font' other than 'font > with a Unicode cmap'?
Right above where it was cut it said: Marco: > A U+0308 (COMBINING DIAERESIS) should remain a U+0308, > regardless that the corresponding glyph *looks* like U+0364 > (COMBINING LATIN > SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304 > (COMBINING MACRON) in > another font, and it looks like two five-pointed start > side-by-side in a > third font, and it looks like Mickey Mouse's ears in <Disney.ttf>... Kent: > These are all unacceptable variations in a *Unicode font (in > default mode)*. Earlier: Marco: > there are fonts which don't have dots over "i" and "j"; Kent: > You have a slight point there, but those are not intended for > running text. And I'm hesitant to label them "Unicode fonts". Given that definition of Unicode fonts, a number of decorative or handwriting fonts (though fewer than I expected) are arbitrarily excluded from being Unicode fonts. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"
