My question is whether the 20A suffix might make them perform better, and if so, is there a function that will format Unicode input as ANSI code to match the 20A parameter? It is only a question on my part, and I assume that you are the best person to present it to.
Andrew West on 11 Jul 2007 7:45 AM:There are a couple of reasons why I personally think that an option to show characters with fallback/substitution/linking applied would not be such a cool idea.Firstly, I'm sure that I am not the only person who loathes the way Microsoft's font substitution works. When I select a specific font to render my text with then what I really want is the application to respect my choice of font and not act as if it knows better then me and use some different font.For example, in Notepad or Word if I select Code2000 to display some Syriac text it will be displayed with Estrangelo Edessa and there is no way I can get it to use Code2000 even though Code2000 supports Syriac just as well as Estrangelo Edessa does (and even worse in Word the font dropdown box shows Code2000 as the selected font when you click on the text, deceiving users into thinking that they have successfullyapplied the font to the text when they haven't). If there was a registry setting where the user could define the font to use as a fallback for each script (or if there was an option to disable font substitution at the application level) then it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is, from a user's perspective the font substitution behaviour is unpredictable and often unwanted.Secondly, font substitution behaviour is application-specific. Microsoft apps such as Word and Notepad do apply font substitution and linking, but many non-Microsoft apps such as OpenOffice.org and BabelPad do not. Thus if charmap showed characters with fallback/substitution/linking applied this would not necessarily be what you will get if you select the same font in some other application.Incidentally, when you told us in September (http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2006/09/03/737553.aspx) that charmap on Vista would still not display anything beyond the BMP and would still only display thevery limited list of Unicode blocks (nothing beyond Unicode 2.0 for @%#'$ sake !!!) I was stunned. How hard could it possibly be to update charmap to show everything up to and including Unicode 5.0 ?So I think that a far more useful feature for charmap would be the ability to display all currently defined Unicode characters.
His remark about the font changing, but the font box still shows it by the original name, is also something that I have experienced. It's a sanctioned virus.
In Google's own words... The name "noto" is to convey the idea that Google’s goal is to see “no more tofu” (no'to). I assume that none of them are vegetarians.