On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:23:38PM +0200, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> Are you sure that UCS4 is a good idea? The main advantage over UTF16
> or UTF8 is that it is a fixed-width encoding; however, for most text
> outside the supplementary planes, it takes twice the memory.
We are wasting much more
Philipp Reichmuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| LGB> | For most uses of non-Latin script in TeX, Omega + Unicode probably is
| LGB> | the way to go already or will be within some time. A LyX that fits
| LGB> | into such a workflow with Unicode input/output would complement this
| LGB> | rather ni
LGB> | For most uses of non-Latin script in TeX, Omega + Unicode probably is
LGB> | the way to go already or will be within some time. A LyX that fits
LGB> | into such a workflow with Unicode input/output would complement this
LGB> | rather nicely.
LGB> My plan is to use unicode (or rather ucs4)
Philipp Reichmuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| For most uses of non-Latin script in TeX, Omega + Unicode probably is
| the way to go already or will be within some time. A LyX that fits
| into such a workflow with Unicode input/output would complement this
| rather nicely.
My plan is to use uni
>> Installing Unicode fonts that way (by splitting them into subfonts and
>> then unifying them under a virtual font) is not a convenient process;
>> however, a user has to do it only once, and the entire font selection
>> is done by Omega, so that the complexity is largely hidden from the
>> user
> CID-keyed PostScript fonts do support more than 256 glyphs in an
> encoding vector. There are patches for dvips and dvipdfm to support
> this type of font.
Oh I didn't know that. Thanks for the information, although I have
no time right now to check and play with it.
> However, people are *usi
>> Would it seem a good idea to merge the CJK patch for support of
>> multibyte character sets with the main trunk sometime in the near
>> future (such as for 1.3)?
SM> No. The CJK patch is not something we want to see merged with its
SM> current status, and xforms-0. is not something CJK us
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:18:12AM +0900, Shigeru Miyata wrote:
> I am going to submit a patch for xforms when I can find a time, but
> on the second thought, an OS/2 support patch I sent a year and a half
> ago was not been incorporated in xforms-0.
This was before the proper merge of patch
Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> Would it seem a good idea to merge the CJK patch for support of
> multibyte character sets with the main trunk sometime in the near
> future (such as for 1.3)?
No. The CJK patch is not something we want to see merged with its
current status, and xforms-0. is not so
Would it seem a good idea to merge the CJK patch for support of
multibyte character sets with the main trunk sometime in the near
future (such as for 1.3)?
Supporting a whole extra version of LyX is probably a pain in the
rear. Moreover, merging it in would be a good step towards Unicode/Omega su
10 matches
Mail list logo
