Philippe Caquant wrote: > I'm on Windows XP Home. > > I noticed that on the Web, you can find "ranges" of > Unicode characters to download, as single fonts. I > first thought I just had to load one single Unicode > font and than all glyphs would be at hand when using > the function "Insert / Special Characters" in Word, be > it Tibetan, Amerindian or Braille. It seems like it > doesn't work this way. There are a few fonts that attempt to cover the entire Unicode range. I'm not sure if any have succeeded (Code2001 may have). Most systems, > So I don't know exactly what I > should do. At the moment, the Insert function just > proposes me some Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebraic, > Symbol codes (does this mean that other codes weren't > at hand in release 2.1, or just that the font > currently used is a subset of Unicode 2.1 ?) The font uses a subset. Unicode 2.1 has *way* more than just Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, and Symbol. CJKV was in from the beginning, AIUI. > and > that's about all. So I suppose I should load all > range-fonts one by one (how many are they ?), and > before doing an Insert / Special character, changing > to the font I would like to use. Yeah, but chances are you won't be changing ranges that often in a document. > In that case, of > course the macros would be much more complicated to > write, because you had to add such tests as (for > decoding): > > - if the code is in the range[x,y], than first change > to font F, supposing font Z is at hand > - if it's in the range[x',y'], then tell the user, one > way or another, that he forgot to install font F' > - etc. That's pretty much how most Unicode-supporting display systems work. When they come across a character not in the current font, will substitute from other fonts. So you can have a font that covers the Latin-1 range, the Arabic range, and CJK, and you'll be able to view text that combines French, Arabic, and Japanese without problems. IF it comes across a character that it can't find in a font, it gives you an "unknown character" glyph (like an empty rectangle). > Then probably the different fonts wouldn't belong to > the same release, etc. A font in an old release will simply be missing some characters. In other words, they'll cover smaller ranges.