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 CJK characters into pieces and automatically
> recompose them, what stops you from doing that for Unicode? The only
> problem is that you have to decompose the Unicode CJK characters yourself,
> and you still have the table look ups, but there's no need to carry around
> a huge font. Even if you have to work with preexisting Unicode technology,
> you could still make the font using that technology instead of doing
> everything by hand.
I agree. Somehow proponents of Giga Character Set seem to forget that
rendering of actual text can be pretty much independent of character
set/coding. In addition, Unicode does offfer what they claim to
offer exclusively as far as Korean Hangul is concerned (U1100 Jamo
block for composing Hangul syllables). The same is, in a sense,
true of Thai and Indic scripts.
Jungshik Shin
