W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

RE: @font-face and unicode-range

From: Michel SUIGNARD <Michel@suignard.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:31:20 -0700
Message-ID: <196961FC49A14A498CAAC9C32F1E5A35046F0A@PE2800.SUIGNARD.lan>
To: "Michael Day" <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
Cc: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
> From Michael Day:

 > > This is a good improvement I think but maybe it would be better to
 > > add a string value to the possible values of <urange>.
 > That's a good idea. The definitive source for Unicode block names
 > be the Blocks.txt file, eg. for Unicode 5.1:
 > http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Blocks.txt

I am not a big fan of the Unicode blocks as a way to define font
coverage capability, although I was part of the design team that created
them for the True Type tables. Although blocks started out reasonably
clean in the early ages of Unicode, they are now created in a way to
optimize filling of the Unicode planes (especially BMP: Plane 0) w/o
much consideration for identification efficiency, the Latin blocks are
probably the worst offenders in that matter with now 6 blocks containing
Latin characters. Then you have some characters that are shared among
blocks that are essential for others one (like between Arabic and
Syriac, and across Hindi blocks). Finally the list of blocks is anything
but stable as it grows all the time, including for existing scripts.

I think that either using hex ranges (as originally designed) or
language script values (such as Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc...
as defined by Unicode UAX#24) is a better approach. And even with that,
it requires some skills to create a font content that adequately cover
writing systems, because of the shared characters (typically classified
as 'Common' or 'Inherited' in term of script values).

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:31:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC