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?

  • 3
    not an answer to exactly your Q, but I noted 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 0:59

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:

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Unicode 10 contains 136690 characters. – Martin Thoma Aug 5 '17 at 13:12

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/

| improve this answer | |
  • 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
  • @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? – phuclv Apr 19 '19 at 16:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.