Talk:Fallback font

Fonts on the Mac[edit]

Well, there's this article and then there's the info on the same font in Fonts on the Mac. And also in Fallback font. What should be done? Please let's discuss this here and decide. Evertype 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any useful information in one article that the other two don't have...why not merge all those articles to Fallback font (since that's the most general article) and bring up the Mac-specific topics in a section? --Ingeborg S. Nordén 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged and redirected Last Resort; Fonts on the Mac is untouched. Here are both original paragraphs, for comparison:

LastResort is a Mac OS font that is invisible to the end user, but is used by the system to display glyphs that are not available in any other font. The symbols provided by LastResort place glyphs into categories based on their location in the Unicode system and provide a hint to the user about which font or script is required to view the unavailable characters. The symbols provided by LastResort are square with rounded corners with a bold outline. In the left and right sides of the outline, the Unicode range that the character belongs to is given using hexadecimal digits. Top and bottom are used for one or two descriptions of the Unicode block. Michael Everson designed the glyphs for this font.

Apple's LastResort font was first included in Mac OS 8.5, for the benefit of applications using Apple Type Services for Unicode Imaging. It is also used in Mac OS X. Designed by Michael Everson of Evertype, the symbols adhere to a unified design. The glyphs are square with rounded corners with a bold outline. In the left and right sides of the outline, the Unicode range that the character belongs to is given using hexadecimal digits. Top and bottom are used for one or two descriptions of the Unicode block name. A symbol representative of the block is centered inside the square.

John Reid 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over a million characters in Unicode?[edit]

The WP page on Unicode says there are 100713 characters defined In Unicode 5.1 so that is essentially the amount a fallback font has to deal with currently. It's still one order of magnitude smaller than the mentioned million ones. If the article refers to the number of assignable code points (in contrast to the assigned ones) this should be worded accordingly.

Granted, the current number of characters makes a complete fallback font unfeasible, anyway. --Johannes Rössel (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) kevin756[reply]

It now reads "over 100,000." (Unicode says "more than 109,000 characters" so "over 100,000" is accurate and precise enough without needing to be updated if the number becomes 110,000. Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko automatic fallback[edit]

Recent Gecko versions (1.9+?) now automatically generate a fallback symbol rather than using boxes or question marks. The symbol resembles the Unicode BMP Fallback font, but also supports a 6 hex digit version for non-BMP characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.250.222 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of a fallback font is suggested in The Unicode Standard."[edit]

Recently, the statement "The use of a fallback font is suggested in The Unicode Standard." was tagged with "not in citation given"

I believe that it is suggested in Section 5.13: "Systems that cannot handle nonspacing marks can normalize to precomposed characters; this option can accommodate most modern Latin-based languages." Comments?

No, I believe that is a misunderstanding of that sentence from the Unicode Standard. The text engine makes a transformation from base character plus non-spacing mark to a pre-composed character. This has nothing directly to do with fallback fonts; that would be a later step in the text display process, if the resulting character were not available in the current font. The citation does not support the text on Unicode purportedly advocating use of fallback fonts. (Not that they are a bad idea, or that Unicode is in any way against them, it's just not mentioned there, is all.) Thomas Phinney (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. Please edit the page so that it no longer contains the inaccuracy you have identified. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typographic implications?[edit]

Using a fallback font list increases the probability that text on a web page will be readable, however what about the problems such a fallback process creates for typographic layouts and design? For instance if the same point size is applied to different fonts the resulting text will not be even approximately the same size. Does specifying the font size in pixels address this? Perhaps a typographer could add a brief paragraph or section to address this. Currently, as I flounder in an ocean of technical data with only scraps of advice keeping me afloat, I can't help. LookingGlass (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Unifont[edit]

@82.53.48.182:: How is the section about GNU Unifont off-topic? -- Error (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]