[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows
From: |
Ilya Zakharevich |
Subject: |
bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:29:56 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 12:46:07AM -0800, I wrote:
> Interesting tidbit:
>
> 57 D800 - DFFF Non-Plane 0. Note that setting this bit implies that
> there is at least one supplementary code point
> beyond the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) that
> is supported by this font. See Surrogates and
> Supplementary Characters.
>
> Extrapolating (since there is no other way to treat this), having a
> Subset “identified” may mean just that there is at least 1 character
> in this range supported by the font. ;-) :-(
To check this conjecture:
• I assume that for most fonts, the OS/2 table is created
automatically by the font editor;
• I did experiments with the only font editor I know: FontForge.
What I did:
• created a new font (File/New);
• changed Encoding to Unicode (Encoding/Reencode/10646-1);
• made some scribles in ã (U+00e3) and щ (U+0449);
• Looked into Element⫽Font␣Info⫽OS/2⫽Charsets.
As predicted above, (in Automatic mode)
Latin Supplement
Cyrillic & Supplement
are highlighted. So, I presume, the conjecture above is justified:
The fact that a Subset is “identified” means just that AT LEAST 1
character is present.
=======================================================
Which means that the current algorithm used by Emacs (on
Windows?) — at least in the conjectural form outlined in another
message in this thread — is completely bogus.
Choosing the first font which has a subset of a character “identified”
is not a reasonable thing to do. One must check whether the character
is ACTUALLY present, and scan other “identified” fonts if not.
Ilya
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, (continued)
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/06
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/06
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/06
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/06
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/06
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/07
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/08
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/08
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/08
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/08
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows,
Ilya Zakharevich <=
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/10
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/10
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/10
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/11
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/11
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/11
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/12
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/12
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/13
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/13