46

So I was looking at this answer on stackoverflow and realized that my fonts aren't covering a whole lot of the utf-8 unicode spectrum (as I get lots of squares). Does anyone know a font that will cover all of that post?

Community
  • 1
xenoterracide
  • 57,918
  • 74
  • 184
  • 250
  • 4
    not an answer to exactly your Q, but I [noted](http://kv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Imz/%D0%A8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%82%D1%8B_%D1%81_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2_ALTLinux_Sisyphus) a utility to conveniently list the fonts (installed) that support the orthogrphy of a given language, eg `fc-list :lang=kv family`, and then one can query for the corresponding files, pkgs, URLs, so that one can help others needing the fonts. – imz -- Ivan Zakharyaschev May 30 '11 at 00:59
  • I don't have the reputation to post an answer, but SIL fonts like Charis and Gentium have great Unicode coverage. – Moss Apr 24 '23 at 14:10

2 Answers2

44

The hands-down most comprehensive coverage would be Roman Czyborra's GNU Unicode Font project. It is intended to collect a complete and free 8×16/16×16 pixel Unicode font. It currently covers 34,445 characters (out of ~40,000+ defined characters).

Most distributions have GNU Unifont in their repositories.

Ed Trager has written a Unicode Font Guide For Free/Libre Open Source Operating Systems which collates geographic coverage of fonts and their associated licensing. The guide was last updated in 2008.

Other fonts with good Unicode support include:

Samuel Harmer
  • 285
  • 3
  • 10
jasonwryan
  • 71,734
  • 34
  • 193
  • 226
20

I came across this in 2016.

A single TTF/OTF font is never going to cover all utf-8 characters. There is a hard limit of 65535 glyphs in a font, and over 1 million utf-8 glphys. You will need to use a font-family for this to work.

A good font-family is the noto font family: https://www.google.com/get/noto/

Rob Dawson
  • 301
  • 2
  • 4
  • 1
    The main issue is browsers can use only one font - as far as I know - for displaying e.g. websites. But the reality is a bit worse - a lot of glyphs missing from most popular fonts. So at least if the 64k glyph is stuffed, it would be better than the current state. – Gabor Garami Aug 21 '16 at 11:30
  • 1
    @GaborGarami Agreed, but some font mechanisms (like fontconfig) will try to grab glyphs from alternative fonts, even if different from the main font. – rbrito Aug 24 '16 at 15:56
  • @rbrito ohh, i didn't know that. Thanks for the info. – Gabor Garami Aug 25 '16 at 11:51
  • Most browsers will fallback for individual glyphs too. – jbg Feb 23 '17 at 13:20
  • there's no UTF-8 character because UTF-8 is just an encoding for Unicode. And there are only 0x10FFFF Unicode code points, any UTF-8 sequence that encodes a code point larger than U+10FFFF is invalid. Even UTF-32 is also limited to 0x10FFFF. See [Why Unicode is restricted to 0x10FFFF?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/52203351/995714) – phuclv Apr 19 '19 at 16:41