Talk:Arial Unicode MS
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm not sure that the examples given in the "Bugs" section have been typed in correctly. I was under the impression that the double-character diacritics are supposed to appear after both characters, rather than between them. For example:
"Latin Small Letter K" + "Latin Small Letter P" + "Combining Double Inverted Breve" = kp͡
The above works fine for me on WinXP SP1, in Firefox 1.0.6, with Arial Unicode MS 1.00 (according to Windows Font Viewer).
The examples under "Bugs" are all of the form letter, mark, letter. If my understanding is correct, the font engine is doing exactly what it's supposed to -- render the diacritic over the preceding letter, and the space before that letter.
R. M. Harman
Linguist and Software Engineer
iTAP Product Team, Motorola
(apologies for being a newbie at using discussion pages; I probably am not formatting things all that well)
- hmm this needs to be checked with the unicode standard. Plugwash 22:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I just sent the following message to unicode.org through thier contact form:
- whilst http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch02.pdf#G1708 doesn't mention double diacritics (e.g. U+035C) specificially it seems to imply that they should go after both characters.
- however http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0300.pdf seems to imply that they should be placed between the two characters they combine with.
- which is correct?
- -- Plugwash 23:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- and the reply i have just received was
- The information you are looking for is in Section 7.7 of the Unicode Standard version 4.0. You should also look at Section 3.11.
- Magda Danish
- Sr. Administrative Director
- The Unicode Consortium
- ok having just read section 7.7 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch07.pdf and use the toc) it is made totally unambiguous that combining double diacritics should be placed between the two characters they go over. I am therefore removing the comment from the article.
RM Harman here again. I actually apparently got here at the same time as you, and was going to edit in that I agree with your position on this. I guess I had just been misled by years of doing things the way MS has been doing it. How would you feel about adding in a remark explaining that there's a way to achieve the desired effect -- it's just not standard-compliant? (MS, break standards? Never!)
- Done, btw do consider getting an account. its pretty hard to build up a reputation as a good editor if the only way people have to identify you is an ip (which may even change all the time).Plugwash 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Why rounder glyphs than the original font? 
Does anyone know why the glyphs that are in both Arial and Arial Unicode MS are different? Offhand I'd say the Arial Unicode MS glyphs look more Helvetica-like, which makes me wonder if Arial at one time looked much the same, but was made more distinct later. Any info appreciated.—mjb 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I decided to study the fonts more closely, and I determined that the "rounder glyphs" are actually the same; they're just stretched a bit, mainly horizontally, due to the different font metrics. Arial Unicode MS has different-sized bounding boxes, which the renderer in Windows apparently does not take into account (not that it should be expected to). I added this info to the article.—mjb 10:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was able to download it at the link provided by the Gentoo wiki, which alludes to the fact that the executable moves around a lot, presumably due to cease and desist letters. John Vandenberg 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This article states several times that Arial Unicode is licensed by Microsoft exclusively to Ascender. I do not believe this is the case now, though it may have been previously. On October 16, 2007, Apple announced on their website that the next version of their flagship operating system, Mac OS X v10.5 ("Leopard"), would be bundled with Arial Unicode. Interestingly, Leopard is also slated to ship with several other previously Microsoft-only fonts, including Microsoft Sans Serif, Tahoma, and Wingdings. Norville 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Support for Indian languages 
Modified ∂ ∆ ∏ ∑ √ ∞ ∫ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ 
The original font has primary symbols in the Macintosh Roman block: ∂ ∆ ∏ ∑ √ ∞ ∫ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ and other symbols which are in the Windows Glyph List, but sorted to Macintosh such as ≡ ⌂ ⌐ ⌠ ⌡
Compare this font:
∂ ∆ ∏ ∑ √ ∞ ∫ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥
Your font which was default into the font in Win XP:
∂ ∆ ∏ ∑ √ ∞ ∫ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥
- I don't understand. What do you mean by "original" font? Are you saying there are differences in how older and newer versions of Arial Unicode MS behave on Mac OS? Are you referring to regular Arial?
- Also, Mac OS Roman is a character encoding, not a Unicode block. Are you trying to say you get mis-mapped characters when you use Arial Unicode MS in a Mac OS Roman-encoded document? Provide a more specific example that we can reproduce. What software are you using, what OS, what versions of what fonts?
- Except for the size & weight of "∫ ≈ ≠", your two examples are identical on my Windows XP system, as viewed in Firefox. Nothing seems amiss. —mjb (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Italics, bold and bold italics 
- Because this font is ginormous so its not worth the maintenance that would be required. Any serious font should work fine with synthetic bold/italics... internet-wise it's probably a bad idea to have variants of fonts being exchanged in general. Even for corporate sites that would like to look like print mags. -- 11:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
Reliable webfont? 
For the last half decade at least I've been using this as a webfont, since it seems to be on every Windows based machine I've ever setup that I can remember and is the only decent huge Unicode fontset on Windows. Is this a bad assumption? I noticed it was not on the "XP Mode" Virtual PC you can download for Windows Vista/7 today when I upgraded to IE9 but still needed to be able to test sites under IE8. I assumed it came installed with IE or something. I assumed modern browsers need to be able to support Unicode out of the box.
- It is only installed with MS Office. So it is not a sure bet to rely on it. The de facto unicode font for Windows is 'Lucida Sans Unicode', so it is best to have both in your fontstack. BTW, I asume by 'using as a webfont' you mean just specifying the font in your CSS fontstack? I can't image serving it as a downloadable font. That would be a bad idea; first because Microsoft has not licenced it for use as a webfont, second because the font is a humongous 22 megabytes! — Edokter (talk) — 12:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect diacritics 
Diacritic marks 
The letters Ľ and ľ displays as an letter L with caron, the letters Ş and ş displays as Ș and ș (s with comma) and the letters Ţ and ţ displays as Ț and ț (T with comma). In your Ubuntu virtual machine, all characters will display correctly using the Windows Vista versions of all of the MS Core Fonts. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)