John Cowan wrote:
>
> The trouble is that there is
> no way to tell generic 10646 fonts from script-specific fonts
> which are encoded in 10646 because there's no other reasonable
> way to do it (e.g. Ethiopic fonts).
Certainly, it would be crazy to encode this info at the end of an XLFD
name. I can see it already:
From
*-iso10646-1
to
*-iso10646-subsets:300,301,330,640,641
(Just an example. I don't know if these are real ISO 10646 subsets IDs.)
A better idea might be to store such subset info in a font property.
These are returned in the "properties" member of the XFontStruct.
> On the one hand, if a user goes to the trouble of specifying a
> 10646 font, that choice should be respected, without attempting
> to grab random glyphs from other fonts.
In our application, you don't choose single fonts. You specify a list of
fonts:
font-family: times, mincho, serif
This is CSS. So if the glyph is not found in one font, you have to look
at the next font in the list. I've mentioned this before...
> On the other hand, a 10646 font may lack a specific character or
> two that are available in some other font, and the user would be
> better off seeing something other than the empty box.
Exactly.
Erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:43 EDT