I found some serious faults (with the implementation of short sequences
of combining diacritical marks, Greek and Hebrew with their accents and
points) with Arial Unicode MS version 1.00 (C) ...- 2000.
I would like to test the newest version of this and other fonts, but am
reading that MS is
On Wednesday, December 01, 2004 22:40Z Theodore H. Smith va escriure:
Assuming you had no legacy code. And no handy libraries either,
except for byte libraries in C (string.h, stdlib.h). Just a C++
compiler, a blank page to draw on, and a requirement to do a lot of
Unicode text processing.
Oh for a chip with 21-bit wide registers!
:-)
Jill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Antoine Leca
Sent: 02 December 2004 12:12
To: Unicode Mailing List
Subject: Re: Nicest UTF
There are other factors that might influence your choice.
For
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Peter R. Mueller-Roemer
I found some serious faults (with the implementation of short
sequences
of combining diacritical marks, Greek and Hebrew with their accents
and
points) with Arial Unicode MS version 1.00 (C) ...- 2000.
I
Peter Constable wrote:
Microsoft has never used the label 'OpenFont' for this or any of the
fonts that ship with their products.
speaking of which, *are* there any open source fonts that come even
close to Arial Unicode MS?
Paul Hastings scripsit:
speaking of which, *are* there any open source fonts that come even
close to Arial Unicode MS?
In what, breadth of coverage or aesthetics? The GNU Unifont has very
wide coverage though it is a bitmap font; James Kass's CODE 2000 and CODE
2001 probably have the widest
Arcane Jill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh for a chip with 21-bit wide registers!
Not 21-bit but 20.087462841250343-bit :-)
--
__( Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
John Cowan wrote:
In what, breadth of coverage or aesthetics? The GNU Unifont has very
breadth mainly. i'm more interested in fonts for testing i18n web app
output than looking nice.
Googling for free Unicode fonts (no quotes) is useful.
sort of, when i've googled for this in the past,
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:38:25 +0700, Paul Hastings wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Googling for free Unicode fonts (no quotes) is useful.
sort of, when i've googled for this in the past, language-specific
(chinese seemed to be the most frequent) fonts turn up more often than
not. hey if you
There's no *universal* best encoding.
UTF-8 however is certainly today the best encoding for portable
communications and data storage (but it competes now with SCSU which uses a
compressed form where, on average, each Unicode character is represented by
one byte, in most documents; but other
Subject: RE: current version of unicode-font
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 at 07:51:42 -0800, Peter Constable wrote:
The most recently shipped version is 1.01, which ships with Office 2003.
... and Office 2004 doesn't ship with Arial Unicode MS at all!
Kevin
If you need immutable strings, that take the least space as possible in
memory for your running app, then consider using SCSU, for the internal
storage of the string object, then have a method return an indexed array of
code points, or a UTF-32 string when you need it to mutate the string
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Cowan xiele:
Paul Hastings scripsit:
speaking of which, *are* there any open source fonts that come even
close to Arial Unicode MS?
In what, breadth of coverage or aesthetics? The GNU Unifont has very
wide coverage though it is a bitmap font; James Kass's CODE
John Cowan wrote,
In what, breadth of coverage or aesthetics? The GNU Unifont has very
wide coverage though it is a bitmap font; James Kass's CODE 2000 and CODE
2001 probably have the widest coverage of any font, though it costs US$5
to use them.
Code2001 is freeware.
Both of them IMHO
This thread amuses me.
I feel like I know quite a bit about the various Unicode encoding forms
and schemes, and my personal opinion is that UTF-16 combines the worst
of UTF-8 (necessity to support multi-code unit characters, regardless of
how rare) with the worst of UTF-32 (high overhead for many
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
All UTF encodings (including the SCSU compressed encoding, or BOCU-8
which is a variant of UTF-8, or also now the GB18030 Chinese standard
which is now a valid representation of Unicode) have their pros and
cons.
UTF's by definition
16 matches
Mail list logo
