Talk:Code2000/Archive 1

message: I removed this from the article:
:The font has a very wide coverage of character sets. However, the glyphs for Unihan are badly shaped:
:* Half of the characters are missing
:* Many of the characters are misplaced or have an incorrect glyph (For example, “持” is displayed as “扗”)
:* Many local varieties of characters are all given the Japanese glyph.
:On the other hand, the support for the Mongolian alphabet of this font is the best among publicly available fonts.
because it seems to be based on an old version of the font. The particular example for an incorrect glyph is now correctly displayed, and as far as I can tell half of the characters aren't missing.
Besides, it looks like it was original research to begin with. --Ptcamn 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: Does anyone know where I can still download Code2000? It seems because he wanted to be paid, the author put the file on very few websites, and his is down (old and on the new site the downloading doesn't work). The last version is 1.16. 81.57.43.204 11:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place to download Code2000 

message: :Sample (you must have Code2000 installed in order to view it properly):
:
And how many people have Code2000 installed ? 0.1% ?
A picture is the only reasonable way. Taw 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sample" 

message: it's possible that the article needs more criticism, but the notability of the font is not in question. It's our first choice for  on MediaWiki:Common.css, which in itself establishes notability (Wikipedia is among the top-ten or so websites now). The font is your first choice if you don't care about free licenses, and if you don't want to pay through your nose. dab (𒁳) 06:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that does establish notability. The question is, is there enough information in reliable sources for us to write an article about it with references? Is it even possible to expand this article? And I think the answer is no. --Ptcamn 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There might be a review or two of it in a trade magazine for typographers. A journal devoted to writing systems might also contain a review of it. Most mentions of this font are of the kind: "Install Code2000 to correctly display the text of this document." This is simply because Code2000 is one of the few pan-Unicode fonts that covers the entire Unicode spectrum. Unicode typefaces has a nice chart that shows just how much more of the Unicode spectrum Code2000 covers than other fonts. Other fonts with the same depth of Unicode coverage are significantly more expensive. jonathon 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notability

message: Surprised that I couldn't find an existing article on this font and Code2000 redirected to Unicode typefaces. --A12n 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous versions of this article have been deleted on the grounds that this is not a notable font.jonathon 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. I missed that, but for what it's worth, Code2000 has been among those fonts mentioned in some circles for handling diverse character needs. The need for such a font may be decreasing as existing Unicode-encoded fonts are expanded and new ones created, but it still seems noteworthy. --A12n 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried this font, but the upper-case Y appears instead of a lower-case open-tail g [ɡ]. Wikipedia:International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Voiced velar plosive --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears only in old versions. 212.95.48.104 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: James Kass has some unexplained break:
:http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m10/0022.html
because his font development is suddenly halted. 83.7.242.254 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the sourceforge site really official? I can't see any announcement on the web that the code2000 has been released under the GPL so this looks suspiciously like someone ripping off the font.
213.106.114.78 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The Source Forge site looks dubious to me. Although the project creator's real name is given as James Kass, how certain can we be that he really is James Kass? I used to have a lot of email contact with James, but have been unable to contact him for over a year now, and fear the worse. I very much doubt that he has closed down his web site and moved Code2000 to SF without telling anyone. The version of the font avilable at the SF site is 1.171, exactly the same as the last version available from his original web site (dating from 2008), and still incorporating the shareware license ("Code2000 is shareware. Users are required to register the font after a reasonable evaluation period by sending $5.00 (US) or equivalent to: James Kass"). I suspect that the SF project was set up by someone impersonating James Kass in order to host a version of Code2000 originally downloaded from http://www.code2000.net. BabelStone (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: There could be opposite, so nothing would be dubious here. Even if James Kass is dead and in grave, his heirs simply could save his work from disappearance. They could do this move from shareware to GPL. So only impersonators involved would be his heirs. JOHNDOE (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Note: postings by socks of banned user struck. If the Sourceforge site is indeed a fake, it may well be the case that the sockpuppeter who promoted it here is responsible for creating it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I analyzed code2000.asm and it was illegally dumped by TTF Dump from http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/tools.aspx 173.254.215.226 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile even there is another supposedly free GNU GPL SourceForge download option, still the download page on SourceForge is apparently a blatant fake and it's a copyright infringement and software piracy. The real author is apparently not available for months, and his website is currently no longer in operation. The SourceForge page is a case of "impostor" action. The three files that are downloadable from there are still the same as before, and internally they still bear non-free shareware "$ 5 cost" markings, also the dBase III *.DBF source code (as would be expected from SourceForge) does not exist. 174.120.234.2 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The http://www.code2000.net is down