> Will there always be a 1:1 mapping
> of, say, "Latin 1" to "iso-8859-1"? Will "Greek" always
> fall into, say "iso-8859-5", or will there be different
> flavors of local languages spread across different
> ISO encodings?
I've been thinking about this some more and came to the conclusion
that this is actually two questions. The first one is "if the font
is marked as iso-8859-x, does it really uses that encoding?" The
second one is "is there a font which really is iso-8859-x, but
XLFD says something else?"
Answer to the first one is yes. If not, there is a bug in the font
and application can't do a thing about it.
The second one is more complicated. I don't use Linux, but there are
enought Linux users around me, so I can ask them if I need something.
However, all of them use Debian and RedHat is sort of a uncharted
territory for me. Some time ago somebody told me that RedHat Linux
has a package for Latin 2 fonts, but they are marked as
adobe-fontspecific. IMO, this is a bug in the package and should be
corrected at the source of the problem.
Eric, in his original article, expressed concern about dingbats being
treated as letters. Dingbats should have fonspecific encoding, so
that could be easily avoided. I don't know if this really is the
case with various dingbats fonts, ecpecially the ones with TrueType
origin. On Solaris, as far as I know, only cursor fonts have fontspecific
Hope this helps.
-- .-. .-. Life is a sexually transmitted disease. (_ \ / _) | email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.org