[sword-devel] coptic -vs- fonts

[Chris Little]

On 07/27/2012 03:36 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On 27/07/12 23:19, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
>> Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> writes:
>>> I've found that GNOME tends to use a very excellent coverage font by
>>> default for its UI elements. However, WebKitGTK might be defaulting to
>>> a different font for display that doesn't include those characters
>>
>> Well, the whole point is ... it displays correctly already.  On Linux
>> systems, anyway.  It *does* include those characters.  So what is the
>> GNOME font discovery tool wanting to accomplish, considering that GTK
>> has /already/ rendered it right?
>>
>
> I am not sure wrt unicode representation of Coptic script, but in
> principle Coptic script is Greek script with extra letters. So, it could
> be that the bit you show relies on Greek letters only, but the Bible
> would require the whole range.
>
> Just a speculation though

The story with Coptic in Unicode is a little unusual. It was originally 
unified with Greek, and there was an assumption that you'd use a Coptic 
font if you wanted your text to look Coptic. But in a recent release, 
Coptic was disunified, so the letters unique to Coptic remain in the 
Greek block while the letters that Coptic copied from Greek have 
distinct encodings in their own Coptic block. It's possible that some 
residue of the former unification remains in GNOME resulting in this 
behavior.

It appears that the name should be:
ⲘⲉⲧⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ
with the rho (3rd letter) capitalized, since it represents the start of 
a new word.

--Chris