To: Andrew Cunningham From: James H. Cloos Jr. cloos(at)jhcloos.com Cc: vladimirg(at)need.bg, unicode(at)unicode.org Received: (qmail 29950 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jul 2003 01:48:59 -0000 from ore.jhcloos.com (64.240.156.239) by ns.need.bg with SMTP; 11 Jul 2003 01:48:59 -0000 from lugabout.jhcloos.org (ppp37.pm3-2.buf-ch.ny.localnet.com [207.251.195.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN lugabout.jhcloos.org, Issuer ca.jhcloos.com (verified OK)) by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FFE1D20A; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:48:52 -0500 (CDT) from lugabout.jhcloos.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugabout.jhcloos.org (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.3 (i386)) with ESMTP id A42B225D7E; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:48:10 +0000 (GMT) Date: 10 Jul 2003 21:48:10 -0400 MIMEVersion: 1.0 ContentType: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Subject: Re: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic Body: >>>>> Andrew == Andrew Cunningham writes: Andrew> 1) appropraite fonts. I only know of two that are suitable: Andrew> Code2000 (v. 1.13) ... [and] Doulos SIL (v 0.6 - Beta). The version of the Lucida fonts Sun ships w/ its Java JREs also do a good job of rendering the example page. Unfortunately mozilla does not render the combining glyphs as well as pango does. Pango does well with several other fonts, including CMU (a set of type1 fonts based on Knuth???s Computer Modern, but put together in a unicode-friendly fashion). I suspect Adobe???s Pro fonts ought to do well, also. -JimC