John Hudson wrote (way back on 2001-04-15):
Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft, and
no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being added
to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
OpenType
At 2001-04-18 08:49:40 -0600 John H. Jenkins wrote:
The fundamental problem is that *everywhere* in the TrueType spec it is
assumed that glyph indices are two bytes, and there are innumerable
tables that reference glyph indices. Basically TrueType would have to
be rewritten from scratch.
11 Digit Boy wrote:
And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick
for Kanji. I mean, how many times are you going to keep
making that water radical?
This has been debated a lot of times. There were two separate stories about
this.
The first one was whether ideograph components
11 Digit Boy asked:
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 $B!_(J 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS $B!_(J LO_SURROGS = 1114112
Notice, however that they are characters, not glyphs. Also notice that they
are slightly fewer
11 Digit Boy asked:
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 × 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS × LO_SURROGS = 1114112
There are other ways to calculate:
17 * 65536 = 1,114,112
0x10 + 1 = 1,114,112 (decimal)
But we really
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 08:10 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
James Kass wrote:
No. The new cmap supports more than double-byte in order to access
non-BMP encodings. The Glyph IDs (the number/order of the glyphs
in a font) remain locked at 65536 max. Unfortunately this isn't
From: "11 digit boy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick for Kanji. I
mean, how many times are you going to keep making that water radical?
Its not all that great of a trick as far as I am concerned, but I am glad
you like it.
The known world is going
In the early 1990s I did a small piece of research on devising a method of
inputting text in the Esperanto language into a PC using an ordinary English
keyboard.
Some aspects of that research now appear to be relevant to the present
discussion of implementing unicode 3.1 on older computer
Edward Cherlin wrote
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
But they did
quote from the Science Museum
"Analytical Engine Mill by Henry Prevost Babbage, 1910.
Babbage bequeathed his
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
Well, I've seen *something* in the (British) Science Museum, but whether
it's complete, or works, I can't remember.
It might be truer to say
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However, I'm a bit
confused as to what you're specifically talking about
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However,
How on earth can 'ideographs' be synthesized from consonants and
vowels? Moreover, when I wrote that 'CJK don't always go together', I
wasn't talking about Chinese characters(ideographs) at all. I was talking
about Korean Hangul only (I think it was pretty clear in the part of
my message
Carl Brown wrote:
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
idea.
Thanks, Carl, but if "these folks" is me, I don't even know what an IBM 1401
is, let alone
: 'Carl W. Brown'; 'Kenneth Whistler'
Subject: RE: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
Carl Brown wrote:
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
MC Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
MC doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
MC Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
MC BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support
MC on Linux, but I know that projects are
Peter Constable wrote:
..., the old 386's
... may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
That is indeed a problem. It's not one that technologists are good at
solving, if for no other reason than because they have little option but to
develop for
James Kass wrote:
..., the old 386's
... may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that it would be
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
At 05:18 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
There should be an English version of that page at the same site.
Michael Everson has a proposal for the script which can be accessed
from the Roadmap page at:
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/bmp-roadmap-table.html
(I think it's Michael Everson's
James Kass wrote:
[...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Funding makes the world
I've done it numerous times, and I still do it on occasion. I still call
it
a "hack", though, since that's what it is, in many cases at least: The
cmap
in TrueType fonts for Windows uses Unicode. People think they're putting
their favourite character on an 8-bit codepoint, but in the font
Peter Constable wrote:
In newer software, our custom-encoded font practices are having
their true identity revealed. They're hacks.
[...]
If the quarriers hadn't conformed to the standards established by the
architects, the pyramids would never have been built.
If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't
Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
Pre-composed Latin
Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
systems, like Win 9x, the source page in true Unicode would
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely right.
The only possible way to display Unicode is to map
At 08:30 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
I couldn't bring myself to call a masterpiece like mayan.ttf a hack:
http://www.themeworld.com/cgi-bin/preview.pl/fonts/mayan.zip
(Mayan is on the Roadmap to Plane One, but it doesn't look as
though there's been any detailed proposal yet.)
I believe
On 04/18/2001 10:30:56 AM "James Kass" wrote:
Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the
slightest.
But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of
Unicode,
as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to
glyph
ID 20, which is
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
MC
I thought that the PUA was being considered here as a place
to put the extra
*glyphs* needed internally by a rendering engine -- not as
a direct mean of
encoding text.
JK
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code
Peter Constable wrote:
Why would you encode presentation form glyphs in the PUA if you don't
expect them to be encoded directly in documents. "Smart font"
rendering systems map character codes into glyph ids, and so these
glyphs don't need to be encoded in the cmap.
I may be wrong, but my
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
I shudder at this characterization, truly. :-)
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
At 10:48 AM 4/18/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely
take lots of memory.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Michael (michka) Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:16 AM
To: Marco Cimarosti; Unicode List; 'James Kass'
Cc: Peter Constable
Subject: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits
Peter Constable wrote:
Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
Levity helps, too.
If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
systems,
Marco wrote:
James Kass wrote:
[...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Reason #1
Peter Constable wrote:
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch
on. James is absolutely right.
Sorry, I have been quite
Carl Brown said, in support of Michka cringing about segments:
I agree.
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write Unicode for the
IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the bill. Seriously I would never
agree to such a ludicrous idea.
Exactly. How about an Apple II or a
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Compared to the memory requirements for video, sound, and for data
caching on servers, the memory requirements for Unicode per se
tend to be down in the noise -- with the exception of those big
CJK fonts.
Well, CJK don't always go together in
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
michka
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
Whether the PUA or custom code pages are used, some kind of
software which converts to and from Unicode would be
helpful to assure that users of older hardware can continue
to communicate with the "modern" world.
[snip]
since i'm not a programmer, I'm not able to throw together such a
On 04/16/2001 09:02:16 PM unicode-bounce wrote:
How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches
up,
or you build your own (e.g. Graphite) and build apps that work on that.
I
suspect (or, at least, certainly hope) we'll see progress in this regard
in
IE 6.
Waiting
Peter Constable wrote:
Andrew C.
This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
where a precomposed
Quoting John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft,
and
no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being
added
to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
OpenType mark-to-base and
Quoting James Kass [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Waiting isn't much of an option, the users need results now.
Even when the rendering technology catches up, the old 386's
and such that are in use in places like the Sudan may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Andrew also mentioned custom (8-bit) code pages, which are widely
used...
actually i don't think they're widely used.
Widely used in general rather than any specific custom code
page use.
But I'd rather not get into Sudanese politics at the moment.
You
This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
where a precomposed form does not exist?
There are literally
At 08:44 PM 4/15/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of languages with this
issue. There's at least one language in Peru that has to stack diacritics
three high!
How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches up,
or you
48 matches
Mail list logo
