There are also a few very good reasons why there is no font that supports everything. The first one you noted yourself – 65536 glyphs are enough for the BMP but nothing else.

Then there is the whole problem of style. Latin has a categorization into Sans-serif and serif typefaces, which are usually available in Roman and Italic/Oblique. This may still work for Greek and Cyrillic but those styles are unknown in Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese Indic scripts and many more. Since a font *has* to categorize itself into those broad categories this doesn’t quite fit. A set of fonts, covering specific scripts with their individual styles is much easier to work with and leads to better typographical results if done right.

A third problem is that many more complex scripts require much more layout work than Latin. Simply providing the glyphs is only a very small part of the task. Both the layout engine and the font have to do some work to get some scripts to render correctly. Many pan-Unicode fonts neglect this – they’re only meant as a last-resort font or for individual glyphs to be displayed, not for typesetting actual text with them. Without the proper tables, combining marks and additional glyphs for ligatures in the font you’ll get unlayouted mess which can be essentially unreadable in certain scripts.

Windows 7 comes with approximately 98 % of Unicode coverage in its preinstalled fonts which is quite good, I think. Essentially this allows the layout engine to choose a font for a glyph which is designed for that script or block. Sure, many things should be (and are) common to nearly all fonts. This includes Basic Latin, punctuation (including all kinds of spaces), maybe a few symbols commonly needed for typesetting text (arrows, &c.).

When I paste a block of Unicode text into Word and ask it to set the font to Arial MS Unicode, some characters change to that font and some do not. When I set the text to Unifont and then back Arial MS Unicode, some characters stay in Unifont.

Windows shows a font-missing symbol, typically a square, if a font is missing a character, even if that character is available in another font installed on Windows. You’re saying that Ubuntu will borrow from another font if it can and only display a missing character indicator if no installed font can represent the character. That makes sense. I think I’ve heard that Macintosh works that way too. Is that right?

I like the way Ubuntu shows you the code point for missing characters, but I could see how Microsoft wouldn’t do that since they appeal to a mass market and most users wouldn’t know what to do with a Unicode code point.

This does work pretty painlessly under Ubuntu – those missing character in the screenshot are probably only one package install away – and I would be very surprised if Windows did not provide a similar mechanism. Perhaps not all Windows applications do fonts the “right” way, and hardcode what font they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial_Unicode_MS

Test it in Unicode Information section and tell me if its fit with your request or not.

also if it has not able to displaythe chracter,please letme know what are you trying to display?

in this softwae I have used Unicode Character Database that provided by unicode cncertium and it contain all of unicode 5.2 characters, (unicode Annex #44 )

@Nasser Arial Unicode MS is a high-quality TrueType font with a large number of characters. It may be the best Unicode font for a combination of quality and range. But there have been times when it was missing a character I wanted to display.

Do You try Arial Unicode MS ?

It’s not clear to me why anyone cares whether a single font covers everything. The OS could care less, and the user is much better off with individual fonts optimally designed for each script.