Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?

• Previous message: James Kass: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• In reply to: J M Craig: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Next in thread: Philipp Reichmuth: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Next in thread: James Kass: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Reply: Philipp Reichmuth: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

J. M. Craig wrote,

> ... If anyone has access to
> the Arial Unicode MS font and can check to see if U+FE20 and U+FE21
> combine properly, I'd be grateful--I don't want to spend the money to
> get it if it won't solve the display problem!
>

Unless a font is fixed width, Latin combiners can't currently
consistently combine well without "smart font technology"
support enabled on the system. So, don't blame the Arial
Unicode MS font if these glyphs don't always merge well.

While awaiting Latin OpenType support, it might be a good
idea to take a look at a well populated fixed width pan-Unicode
font like Everson Mono.

Best regards,

James Kass.

• Previous message: James Kass: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• In reply to: J M Craig: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Next in thread: Philipp Reichmuth: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Next in thread: James Kass: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Reply: Philipp Reichmuth: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 19:25:34 EDT