This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanisaac(talk | contribs) at 06:09, 24 March 2013(Writing systems class=start, (building narrative) importance=low). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 06:09, 24 March 2013 by Vanisaac(talk | contribs)(Writing systems class=start, (building narrative) importance=low)
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
The part that says those are the only fonts that got allt he glyphs, seems like a very limited analysis of all fonts there are out there, the site that says the only fonts with 100% coverage doesn't actually says that, it just got a list of fonts and how much they cover --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to edit it. I can easily see that FreeMono (the Courier equivalence in the GNU Free Fonts) covers all these glyphs. And, those who made the Unicode proposal will probably have prepared such a font. A statement that says only two fonts have 100% coverage is inaccurate. --Ahyangyi (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]