ral manner." However, the article does not go on to specify
just what is better, more efficient, or more "natural" about the GCS
approach.
The discussion then continued in the following messages whose subject begins
by either 'Re: "Giga Character Set": Nothing but noise' or 'Re:
James E. Agenbroad wrote:
If I had to make a guess it would be that transforming the
glyphs of parts of characters so they will fit together in
a pleasing fashion would take about as much effort (or
more) than designing separate glyphs for each new character.
Perhaps. I am a programmer, so
"Marco" == Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jon Babcock is satisfied to stop here, and indeed two
"holograms" can greatly reduce the number of characters needed.
Not two holograms usually, but two * hemigrams *, one of which is a
'hologram' (wen2) and other may be a
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Ewell wrote:
Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl W. Brown:
An article in the October 12, 2000 issue of Linux Weekly News
http://lwn.net/bigpage.php3 tries to explain the benefit...
Actually, that quote from Linux Weekly
Carl W. Brown:
An article in the October 12, 2000 issue of Linux Weekly News
http://lwn.net/bigpage.php3 tries to explain the benefit: "Many
Asian characters are composites, made up of one or more simpler
characters. Unicode simply makes a big catalog of characters, without
recognizing
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:31:49AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there are also a few drawbacks, of course. E.g.: designing and
validating a CJK font becomes a behemoth enterprise;
[...]
huge fonts are needed
If you can decompose the CJK characters into pieces and automatically
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:31:49AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there are also a few drawbacks, of course. E.g.: designing and
validating a CJK font becomes a behemoth enterprise;
[...]
huge fonts are needed
If you can decompose the
7 matches
Mail list logo
