Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:07:11 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kB1H75XR031752 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:07:05 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kB1Gulwo009937; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kAUN21Wc027421; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:43 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 1291727 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:43 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kB1Guhht017411 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:43 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kB1GuQwo009797 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from [84.169.165.35] (helo=morse.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwh2-1GqBgY2NcB-0001KM; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:56:26 +0100 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 075894DB5F; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:26 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:923c546e49b26a7485eda6910e23f403 Message-ID: <17776.24249.918344.634508@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:56:25 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: The Next Font Selection Scheme To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: Precedence: list X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -102.461 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2006 17:07:11.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[2400BAA0:01C7156B] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4999 J.Fine writes: > I'd find it helpful to know to what degree CSS and > Unicode would solve font selection problems for > printed pages. > > Excluding mathematics, of course. That has its > own issues. and excluding text ... :-) unicode doesn't solve anything other than providing a character naming inventory. which is fine and helpful but is not at the heart of what a font selection scheme is all about. fonts do not implement unicode, at best they allow the glyphs they contain to be accessed by unicode names. but they do not contain glyphs for all unicode chararacters so in reality each of them implements a different encoding which is a subset of unicode. as far as the "set of supported gyphs" problem is concerned unicode as such doesn't solve anything unless you are happy with finding printed question marks or black blobs in your output whenever you have addressed a character not available in the current font resource. in other words, somewhere there has to be a knowledgeable instance that decides what to do when a current font selection doesn't work for the requested characters because it is not part of the supported glyph set of that resource --- you can consider that part of the font selection intelligence and it is not resolved with a naming standard for characters eg unicode frank