[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 13:32:24 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 07:41:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Choosing the first font which has a subset of a character “identified”
> > > is not a reasonable thing to do.
> >
> > See my other messages: I'm not sure we actually do that. It's
> > possible that the subrange test is used only as a filter, after we
> > already identified the candidate fonts.
>
> In fact, it's almost certainly a filter: at least my reading of
> ww32font.c:font_matches_spec is that if the font spec specifies a
> script, then fonts that do NOT have the corresponding subrange bit set
> are rejected.
So back to the drawing board:
• on your system
• with Symbola installed
• with the default configuration
I presume that Math Alphabeticals are not shown (but ARE shown when
Symbola is EXPLICITLY marked as the default font for them).
WHY?
With my conjectures, the explanation would be that a certain other
font on the system has the Math Alphabeticals Subset “identified”, so
this font is chosen by Emacs — but in reality, this font does not
support the whole subset, so the needed glyphs are missing. (For
example, DejaVu has Monospaced range, and nothing else. [Well, the
glyphs in the Monospaced range are totally broken, but that is
irrelevant for the current discussion!])
Without my conjecture, what would be your explanation?
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, 2015/03/07
- 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, 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, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/10
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows,
Ilya Zakharevich <=
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/11
- 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
- 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, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/03/08
- bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows, Ilya Zakharevich, 2015/03/06