Ciao TonyM TonyM wrote:
> The thing I find frustrating is fonts seem not to document the "code > pages" they include. There must be Unicode rich ones available for linux > and apple and other devices as there is for Windows. > I agree. *Frustrating* is the word. It is one of those areas of OS process that is simultaneously BRILLIANT and CONFUSING. It is *brilliant *in that modern glyph end-usage got so much easier. Thanks to Unicode + improved Font File Architecture + Substitution metadata. It is *confusing* in that the OS+software mediated process of substitution actually now makes it difficult to answer simple questions about which fonts to use where---because the substitution process transparently does it automatically. Unraveling that is really for an expert in that specific field now. I did some tests in TW to see if I could get it to use a special Test Font that Adobe provide which indexes ALL Unicode code points to a "blank." Doing that you can, in theory, set a CSS cascade such that you effectively switch-off substitution (i.e. cascade: Font, BlankFont). that make it quick and easy to know which fonts truly hold a glyph. Unfortunately Windows 10 doesn't directly support the indexing method the AdobeBlankVF font file uses. I'm still playing around with the idea though. Best wishes TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/cb4f0205-2377-406b-9374-e35d0654ea33n%40googlegroups.com.
