>
> How is this different from any other font that supports only part of
> the script's characters?  Many Unicode blocks have "supplement" parts,
> and there's nothing to assure a user that a font which supports the
> representative characters will necessarily support all of the others.
> Users should be prepared to deal with such problems when they happen,
> and there's no way Emacs could warn them about every possible case,
> since there are too many fonts out there.
>

Ok, so I will not mention that.

(Personally, I find it strange that a Tamil font doesn't support the
> Supplement block, and even more strange that Google created a separate
> font instead of extending an existing one.  Perhaps this is because
> the Tamil Supplement block is relatively new.)
>

I think the noto guys are planning to provide merged fonts to users either
as all the scripts in one font, or on a per-region basis.
See: https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/issues/2257

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 6:44 PM Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com> wrote:

> [வெள்ளி ஜூன் 03, 2022] Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:46:10 +0530
> >> Cc: Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Visuwesh <
> visuweshm@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Great! I will send them in two different bug reports.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >> I think we should also warn users that if they are trying to change the
> tamil font in their init.el, they should use
> >> codepoints instead of the script name,
> >> in the (set-fontset-font) function, because if their font does not
> support the supplement characters, they will
> >> once more be displayed as "tofu".
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > (Personally, I find it strange that a Tamil font doesn't support the
> > Supplement block, and even more strange that Google created a separate
> > font instead of extending an existing one.  Perhaps this is because
> > the Tamil Supplement block is relatively new.)
>
> Probably because most of the characters added are historic, for a lack
> of a better word.  I have never seen them used in practise and I doubt
> most Tamil speakers know about them either: maybe if you were old, you
> might have used it and/or heard about it [1].  Considering this, I don't
> think most font maintainers/creators would have the supplement
> characters in high priority list.
>
> Also, these characters were added in Unicode 12.0.
>
> [1] FWIW, even my mother did not know about it.
>