Re: Unicode Digest, Vol 50, Issue 13

From: Adam Borowski via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:03:43 +0100

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18 2018 at 14:06 CET, unicode_at_unicode.org writes:
> > Subject: metric for block coverage
> >
> > Hi!
> > As a part of Debian fonts team work, we're trying to improve fonts review:
> > ways to organize them, add metadata, pick which fonts are installed by
> > default and/or recommended to users, etc.
> >
> > I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts.
> > It's probably reasonable to do this per Unicode block. Also, it's a safe
> > assumption that a font which doesn't know a codepoint can do no complex
> > shaping of such a glyph, thus looking at just codepoints should be adequate
> > for our purposes.
>
> As a Debian user using some rare characters for old Polish
> transliteration I would be happy with a tool which scans
> available/installed fonts for a specific list of characters and shows
> only those fonts which support the whole list. Of course showing also
> the characters in question would be very desirable.

Thanks, your suggestion is a good addition to the wishlist of features we'd
want to have. Especially for the "available" case -- it'd be tedious to
install all candidates just to check them.

As for "installed":
    fc-list ':charset=16e5' file family

ᛗᛖᛟᚹ!

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ Imagine there are bandits in your house, your kid is bleeding out,
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the house is on fire, and seven big-ass trumpets are playing in the
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ sky.  Your cat demands food.  The priority should be obvious...
Received on Sun Feb 18 2018 - 11:04:03 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Feb 18 2018 - 11:04:04 CST