Kaixo!
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 10:18:20AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:01:26 +1100,
> Chanop Silpa-Anan wrote:
>
> > tis620-0 is the offical one. please patch the code I'll try the mlterm
> > soon. I think it is the same as tis620.2533-1, just the naming that is
> > different.
>
> Thank you very much for your effort. However, I found that tis620-0
> font is slightly different from tis620.xxxx-x fonts. Combining characters
> in tis620-0 fonts have negative expand (i.e., glyphs are written leftward
> from the specified location) while all characters in tis620.xxxx-x fonts
> are exactly fixed-width. Can we rely on the structures of fonts?
tis620.xxxx-x and tis620-x both use negative expand; that is needed for
combining characters.
The differences are only in tis620-{1,2} that also include in unused places
variants that allow better looking compositions (to be used by rendering
engines).
--
Ki �a vos v�ye b�n,
Pablo Saratxaga
http://www.srtxg.easynet.be/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0x8F0E4975
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
