Around 11 o'clock on Jul 7, David Starner wrote:
> My question here is, since it's clear that fr.orth was written with an eye > to supporting Latin-1 fonts, why wasn't en.orth written to support ASCII > fonts? I have quite a few fonts that were made for English use and only > cover ASCII, and using that ASCII subset, even in places where Latin-1 is > available, is quite common. That's a fine question; I did prune the non-Latin1 glyphs from fr.orth to match existing Latin1 fonts, but I left the non-ASCII glyphs in the coverage because I have no ASCII-only fonts and didn't realize there still were some in the wild. I suppose that was rather naïve of me. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
