At 13:22 3/5/2002,
=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCJG0hOyE7ITshOxsoQiAbJEIkbSE7ITshOxsoQg==?= wrote:
>Should there not be a "UniGlyph" encoding, for use by font designers,
>etc., which would encode these glyph variants? People who type text do so
>in Unicode, then the font internally converts it to UniGlyph in
>preparation for display.
No.
>If nothing else, UniGlyph would provide a convenient checklist of needed
>glyph variants for a given font.
Let's suppose that for every script you can identify a set of 'needed
glyphs', independent of particular font styles. What about all the
unnecessary glyphs? The variant swash Q? The offi ligature? The smallcap
aligning tabular figures?
You cannot base a text display system on a glyph encoding without either
limiting the creativity of font developers or providing a secondary
mechanism that maps any unencoded glyph back to an encoded character. Since
such a mechanism already exists in OpenType and AAT, why bother trying to
invent another mechanism to do part of the job that is already being done?
John Hudson, font designer
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
irretrievably.
Walter Benjamin
