At 00:19 2/8/2002, Chris Pratley wrote:
>Microsoft applications use both of these to try to determine if a font
>is likely to support a certain range. Some fonts do not properly set
>those values but most do, especially common ones.
Chris, how do you define a 'properly set' Unicode range in the OS/2 table?
Correct codepage support is self-evident: a font should indicate codepage
support only if it's cmap table includes *all* the characters in that codepage.
Our current production tool (FontLab 4.0) indicates support for a Unicode
range if *any* of the characters in that range are supported. This seems to
me, on analysis, to be the best approach, since few fonts will support all
the characters in a Unicode range, the definition of a Unicode range may
change over time as new characters are added, and arbitrarily insisting on
a certain percentage of the characters in a Unicode range is, well, arbitrary.
I seem to recall that this approach is approved by your colleagues in the
MS type group, but would be interested to know if your opinion, as an MS
app developer, differed.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
irretrievably.
Walter Benjamin
