From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 07:30:45 EST
On 02/12/2003 18:41, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
>"Patrick Andries" <Patrick.Andries@xcential.com>
>
>
>
>>Well, some fonts would be better than none
>>(and they have to be made so that
>>the Unicode standard be printed).
>>
>>
In fact they have to be made before the character can even be proposed.
>
>In the case of complex scripts, a font sufficient to print a code chart is
>nowhere near adequate to render that script properly.
>
>
An adequate proposal for a complex script should surely include a proper
account of the script behaviour and sample glyphs of presentation forms.
And so such a proposal should include all that is needed for a
developer, and is available some time before the new script is
officially standardised.
>If you code chart type glyphs are enough for you then on Windows if you have MS
>Office there is always Arial Unicode.
>
>
Except that this font is stuck at Unicode 2.something. Or is there any
sign of an update?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 08:11:10 EST