metric for block coverage
Adam Borowski via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sun Feb 18 06:05:29 CST 2018
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 02:14:46AM -0800, James Kass wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote,
> > I'm looking for a way to determine a font's coverage of available scripts.
> > It's probably reasonable to do this per Unicode block. Also, it's a safe
> > assumption that a font which doesn't know a codepoint can do no complex
> > shaping of such a glyph, thus looking at just codepoints should be adequate
> > for our purposes.
> You probably already know that basic script coverage information is
> stored internally in OpenType fonts in the OS/2 table.
It's only a single bit without a meaning beyond "range is considered
functional". No "basic coverage" vs "good coverage" vs "full coverage".
On the other hand, listing raw codepoints in an universal way is as simple
$#ARGV==0 or die "Usage: $0 <font>\n";
These codepoints can then be grouped by block -- but interpreting such lists
is what's unobvious.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ I've read an article about how lively happy music boosts
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ productivity. You can read it, too, you just need the
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ right music while doing so. I recommend Skepticism
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ (funeral doom metal).
More information about the Unicode