GNU bug report logs - #19993
25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ilya Zakharevich <ilya <at> math.berkeley.edu>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19993 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#19993: 25.0.50; Unicode fonts defective on Windows
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:08:01 -0800

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:11:32PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:21:36 -0800
> > From: Ilya Zakharevich <ilya <at> math.berkeley.edu>
> > Cc: 19993 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 04:00:27PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Practically nothing “non-banal” is shown.  Let me try…  No U+1D49C,
> > > > U+2099 ₙ, U+1D552, U+27e8 U+27e9 ⟨⟩ (just looking into my recent
> > > > “real-life” file of notices).
> > > 
> > > U+2099, U+27e8, and U+27e9 are displayed here (I have the STIX fonts
> > > installed, and they are used for that).  The rest indeed aren't.
> > 
> > > Do you have fonts installed that cover these codepoints?
> > 
> > As I said, «Unifont Smooth» has everything in BMP of v7.0.  Many fonts
> > (including «Symbola») have Math chars. 
> 
> Emacs on Windows needs a font to support the entire range of a script,
> or else it won't use the font.  It finds out which scripts are
> supported by a font by looking at the fsUsb member of the
> FONTSIGNATURE structure for each font.  See font_supported_scripts,
> and also font_matches_spec which uses it, for the details.  So maybe
> the fonts you have don't announce in their signature that they support
> these Unicode ranges.  E.g., U+1D49C is in "Mathematical ALphanumeric
> Symbols", whose subrange bit is 89 -- does Symbola set this bit in its
> font signature?

This does not make any sense…  Before we go to the details of a font
structure, let’s discuss it semantically.

  What can it mean that a font “supports a script”?

Theoretically, it may mean that
  • it “knows” all the characters in the script, and
  • has enough extra infrastructure to shape these characters
    into a correct glyphic representation.

I may see that the second part may be described by one bit per
script.  But what about the first one?  A repertoir of a script
changes every year (sometimes several times per year).  How can this
be encapsulated into a bit?

-------

But anyway:
  • I open Symbola.ttf with fontforge;
  • Go to Element⫽Font␣Info;
  • Go to OS/2;
  • Go to Charsets;
  • And there, deep in the list, “Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols”
    are highlighted. 

AND: Symbola IS listed in `font-show-log'…

> Or maybe we could add some more heuristics to the code in w32font.c,
> to be smarter about font selection for Symbol script.  I really don't
> know enough about all this stuff.

I’m not sure one can fix this mess incrementally….

Ilya

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.