Off, or awful?

The whole font is questionable. The s is atrocious too. But you get what you pay for, and hey, it was free!

"Italics? Who needs an Italic font if you have Word?" (The italics are obviously a slanted roman)

... "Letterspacing? What's that?" (It appears a tracking of about +20 is applied to all)

.... "Kerning? Not necessary on a well-defined font!" ("W.", "Ac", "Au", "T/Jo")

So, humour us. Where did you find this gem?

OK, the J is bizarre (and the 2, and the 'e' is too small), but I don't mind the rest. It has a nice hand-carved look to it.
I've just finished reading "Goudy's Type Designs, His Story And Specimens" and plenty of his work seems as rough.

At least this seems clean and has a nice weight- from what I can see. Plenty of room for improvement, but I would use it on a yardsale poster, or for a lost cat, without reservations.

@Beau: Yeah, but you wouldn't use it in an academic article, which is what this looks like (since the extract is a reference citing a Springer journal article)...

The font is Code 2000 (James Kass' site) which contains a huge quantity of characters. Here is its Cherokee letter gu:

I'll note that if a font is embedded in a PDF, one can simply use Reader or Acrobat to tell you what the embedded fonts are: File > Document Properties, then select the "Fonts" tab.

Cheers,

T

Here's an answer from a completely alien thread, I hope it is helpful:

>In our street, there is a donut baker, who embeds his finger into his behind and then into his donuts, and when he sees people vomiting on the sidewa[lk], he can tell where the donuts came from.

cheers!

I've been whining about the JSTOR type for a while; it's just incredible how bad the Latin is. But I looked up Code 2000 not too long ago, and now I feel a bit bad about maligning it given that it has such an enormous language range. Are there any better drawn faces that JSTOR could substitute that would still allow them to set just about any language?

"Are there any better drawn faces that JSTOR could substitute that would still allow them to set just about any language?"

Has anyone taken a close look at Gentium? I saw it for the first time today at the TOC Conference in New York. It was mentioned as an open source typeface with a huge range of unicode characters. It sets Russian, Chinese and math equations. Looked very nice on the big screen, with nice italics. Would love to hear what you guys think:

http://scripts.sil.org/CMS/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium...

Gentium covers a huge range of Latin-based alphabets and also covers basic Cyrillic and Greek. But it doesn't include Chinese characters. You must have seen it used in combination with another font that supports Chinese.

Code2000, on the other hand, covers just about every writing system you can think of; take a look at the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code2000. There are not many other fonts with even comparable coverage of the world's writing systems.

A quick search reveals Code2000 includes 53,068 characters (63,546 glyphs) in version 1.171. TITUS Cyberbit Unicode by comparison has 36,161 characters in version 4.0, and Gentium has around 1,500 glyphs.

So this font usage *is* justified after all? One Font To Rule Them All?

Perhaps it is -- no time slash money to check per case what font combos best suit plain text plus a smattering of other scripts. I always take my time to scan my library for the best font that also covers all characters I need -- it can take some time, finding, say, a Chinese font, with that particular requirement.

Given the sheer number of characters, I suspect class kerning is out of the picture :-) And the odd "J" must have been to save one single position in the glyph list, dubbing for the Cherokee eclectic "TJ".

Does Code2000 come with a real beta, or is that fused with the German double es?

Sounds like a job for that Typophile Font people keep trying to get off the ground ;-)