https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51843

--- Comment #8 from Glenn Adams <gad...@apache.org> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Hello!
> 
> Thanks for your reply! Here are a few clarifications!
> 
> > the vast majority of modern usage,
> Many, many software do not support non-BMP characters. I would like to
> clarify that FOP is not the only one. The fact that non-BMP characters are
> poorly supported is among the main reasons why non-BMP characters are seldom
> encoded as such. Instead, work-arounds are used. For example, non-BMP
> characters are often converted to parts of the so called "private use area"
> (U+E000 to U+F8FF) before being processed. Sometimes, "font-tricks" are
> used, where the glyphs of one alphabet are just copied to a BMP-alphabet's
> place -- reminding of the (early) nineties, where greek and cyrillic glyphs
> (among others) were often living in "ASCII"-fonts. Sometimes, they are
> replaced by PNG's. All these work-arounds contribute to many confusions and
> also contribute to the "non-visibility" of these alphabets and to great
> difficulties to find text written with these character sets.
> 
> In other words, the poor support for non-BMP characters is indeed one of the
> main reasons for their "non-visibility". It is important to avoid
> misinterpretations here: these characters are both used and useful.
> 
> > demonstrate to me a real, current need to use non-BMP characters
> To be accepted as part of Unicode, an alphabet or other character set (such
> as mathematical symbols, etc.) needs to be supported by a VERY active
> community during a long time. Otherwise, the Unicode consortium does not
> include this alphabet. The very fact that Unicode includes non-BMP alphabets
> and other character sets is a proof that an active community needs those
> characters.
> 
> On the other hand, the fact that dozens of alphabets are still absent from
> Unicode shall not be misinterpreted as a non-usage of these alphabets.
> 
> > adding full CJK support,
> Thousands of CJK characters live outside the BMP. A full CJK support
> requires support for non-BMP characters.
> 
> > If you wish to contribute a patch that adds non-BMP support,
> I plan to try to write some kind of fix this summer.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> SaaĊĦha,

again you are giving me general reasons, but not specific ones that drive your
immediate needs; i am extremely familiar with Unicode, having been a co-author
of Unicode 2.0, a technical director of the Unicode consortium from 93-98, and
Unicode's representative to the ISO SC2/WG2 IRG (Ideographic Rapporteur Group),
who created the CJK encodings in Unicode;

i want to know specifically what non-BMP characters *you* want to use and what
specific fonts *you* will use to print these non-BMP characters; if you can
demonstrate a good, real need (as opposed to generalities), then perhaps I will
be inclined to give non-BMP support a greater priority; if not, I will
continue to assign higher priority to other features that better support
non-Roman scripts that use the BMP; regarding CJK and non-BMP, I agree that
it is useful to support those characters, however, i'd like to see fonts
that are available for these characters first;

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to