[more to Tomohiro than to Roozbeh]:
In addition, the initial/medial/final/isolated 4-way separation
of glyphs is a reasonable first step in particular for 'plaintext'-
like cases, but in terms of typographic quality, it's about at
the level of non-proportional text for Latin. Much better
quality rendering software exists, e.g. for TeX.
Regards, Martin.
At 04:58 01/07/06 +0430, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
>
> > > We have to choose some way: go the OpenType way, or come to some
> > > assignment of glyph numbers somewhere (Private use area? After U+10FFFF?)
> > > for the missing presentation forms.
> >
> > Why not submit a proposal to include them to Unicode?
>
>They are not characters. They are glyphs. The only reason they have
>encoded the current presentations forms is legacy character sets (I have
>heard that it was the Egypt government who pushed them). And both Unicode
>and JTC1/SC2/WG2 have agreed not to encode any more presentation forms
>(unless they exist in a character set used before 1991).
>
>I completely understand their idea, and agree with it. The presentation
>forms are against the sense of the standards. Yes, I know that if they
>didn't exist, good Unicode Arabic support would have needed to wait more,
>but in that case, we would have already agreed to the infrastructure
>needed for other cursive scripts, Indic ones, Syriac, and Tibetan (any
>missing?).
>
>roozbeh
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>I18n mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
