On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:49:34 +0200 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:33:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > Plus, they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my > > needs (actually, do they even support unicode at all?!). > > not really, I don't think so anyway. They (at least on my box) > have some iso 8859-1 characters, but not beyond that. > I've always felt text rendering engines should be able to automatically fallback to another font for any characters that aren't in the selected font. (Ideally with a user-configurable chain of fallbacks, similar to CSS, but selected on a per-character basis.) Because showing the right character in a mismatched font has *got* to be better than not showing the character at all and a generic "missing font" glyph. Besides, even with the same font, it's not as if there's really all *that* much consistency between, ex., latin, cyrillic, hiragana, hangool, arabic, aincient egyptian...uhhh...klingon...etc. > > BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that > would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined > characters and then send them right out. Unicode even has (experimental, last I checked) pages defined for a variety of common (and not-so-common) non-text symbols. The four playing card suits, methods of transportation, etc.