Around 23 o'clock on Sep 28, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> We're aware of that (Tifinagh is the example I like to give). The > point Keith was making (if I understood him correctly) was that core X > fonts should only be used for glyphs covered by legacy encodings. For > new glyphs, client-side fonts (Xft or otherwise) should be used > instead. Juliusz is mostly correct; the problem is that any fonts encoded in iso10646-1 must be opened and queried before an application can discover which glyphs are available. It is the only common X encoding in use today that has this property. For any other encoding, fonts are expected to provide the complete repertoire of glyphs. If we use iso10646-1 encodings, we'll avoid this particular issue. XLFD has no standard mechanism for specifying which glyphs are available. As it was developed before Unicode, there was no concept that a font wouldn't encode every glyph. I believe that iso10646-1 encoded fonts can only be effectively used from the client side; a database can accompany the fonts themselves allowing applications to perform font selection based on available glyphs. I hope to finish work on Xft in the near future which demonstrates how this works. Any way of making iso10646-1 fonts work reasonably will require a change in the X server. As any such change takes essentially the same amount of time to propogate to all X servers, we might as well use the one which solves a host of other issues at the same time (Render). [EMAIL PROTECTED] XFree86 Core Team SuSE, Inc. _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
