MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <E85BA455AFD3EE488C8BC5CCF98DD41788C8BA@EPPING-EVS1.open.ac.uk>
Message-ID:  <17776.26646.119223.595677@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Date:         Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:36:22 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: The Next Font Selection Scheme
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <E85BA455AFD3EE488C8BC5CCF98DD41788C8BA@EPPING-EVS1.open.ac.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

J.Fine writes:
 > Frank wrote:
 > 
 > > 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
 > 
 > Is that not what virtual fonts are for?

on small glyph collections -- yes that is one possibility to build new font
resources from old. but that doesn't resolve the more general problem with
them as you can't built font resources covering unicode this way.

anyway, what i was saying is unicode doesn't help you with font selection
issues, it only helps you in providing a uniform naming convention

frank