- From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:11:21 -0400
- To: Jungshik Shin <jshin@mailaps.org>
- CC: Unicoders <unicode@unicode.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
Hi, I am glad to see the issue has been given some attention. I concluded there was a problem after experimenting with some CJK characters that I repeated with different lang tags and could not get any display differences unless I used non-Unicode fonts assigned to each language. I did this with IE 6 and NS 7 and Opera (dont recall if it was 6 or 7.) tex Jungshik Shin wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote: > > > Yes, underlying fonts can be a Unicode architecture. That's a good > > thing, but invisible to end-users. > > I would like to keep the sense of "Unicode font" as meaning a font which > > supports a large number of scripts, rather than meaning one that uses > > Unicode for its mapping architecture. > > > > Yes, OS and browsers are getting better. My concerns center around: > > Is the mechanism for selecting fallback fonts language-sensitive, so > > that it would favor a Japanese font for Unicode Han characters that were > > tagged as lang:ja > > I'm a little at loss as to why you have the impression > that 'lang' tag has little effect on rendering of html (in > UTF-8. e.g. your page or IUC10 announcement page which used to be at > http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc10/x-utf8.html) by major browsers. MS > IE has been making use of 'lang' attribute(html) for a long time and > Mozilla solved the problem (although 'xml:lang' is not yet supported) > last December. In case of Mozilla(and Netscape 7), see > > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105199 (fixed. > where you'll find a pair of screenshots with dramatically > different rendering results) > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115121 > (xml:lang : not yet fixed) > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122779 (C-L http header > and UTF-8 document) > > > And are the fonts labeled so that the supported language is known? > > Judging from the discussion about the issue in Xfree86-font > list, most of modern OTFs are. Otherwise, applications (or a library > for text rendering/font selection) can resort to a kind of mapping the > character repertoire of a font to language(s) covered as is done by > fontconfig for XFree86. For instance, characters in JIS X 0208 are all > covered, but characters from GB2312, Big5 and KS X 1001 are missing, > a font is likely to be Japanese. > > > Even so, I'd still need to have a large collection of fonts then. > > Indeed that's the case. If OT lang-tag is made use of and > multiple alternative glyphs are available in a single(or > a few) pan-script Unicode font(s), you'd not have to. > > Jungshik -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 11:11:54 UTC