Just my outsider's $0.02:
> The fonts
> that I have come across and claim to be Unicode fonts, such as
> MS Arial/Times New Roman/Courier New, Tahoma, Code2000 or
> Caslon appear to be internally collections of fonts with ISO-8859-*
> and KOI encodings.
I don't think that's a very correct description, at least not for Code2000
(and I doubt for other truetype fonts). What do you mean by "internally"?
The physical order of glyph data stored in the .ttf file, or the glyph
index numbers used internally to reference them? Neither are necessarily
identical, and at least in Code2000 neither reflects any 8-bit codepages.
Actually both happen to follow the ordering in Unicode. Only, there are
naturally gaps due to unassigned (or unsupported) codepoints, and there are
also glyphs not mapped to from any Unicode codepoint directly but only
referenced by OpenType features.
> I am looking for a font that is coded as a
> martix
If that means that the glyph indeces should equal the Unicode codepoint
numbers for every glyph, I doubt you'll find anything like that in
TrueType. It's part of the very definition of TrueType that internal glyph
indeces are hardly ever identical to the character set codepoints used
externally to access them. They are supposed to be always mapped through a
CMAP lookup table, as far as I know.
Lukas
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
