HI Neil, I tend to prefer refering to them as Pseudo-Unicode solutions, rather than hacked fonts or adhoc fonts, and differentiating them from legacy or 8-bit solutions.
My preferred approach would to be to treat them as a separate encoding. But I doubt that will likely happen. It doesn't help that a mobile devices I purchase in Australia will ship with a Unicode font installed, but the same device and model, may ship with a non-Unicode font installed in Myanmar and potentially other parts of SE Asia. Andrew On 7 Oct 2016 22:04, "Neil Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/10/16 07:42, Denis Jacquerye wrote: > >> In may case people resort to these hacks because it is an easier short >> term >> solution. All they have to do is use a specific font. They don't have to >> switch or find and install a keyboard layout and they don't have to >> upgrade >> to an OS that supports their script with Unicode properly. Because of >> these >> sort term solutions it's hard for a switch to Unicode to gain proper >> momentum. Unfortunately, not everybody sees the long term benefit, or >> often >> they see it but cannot do it practically. >> >> Too often Unicode compliant fonts or keyboard layouts have been lacking or >> at least have taken much longer to be implemented. >> One could wonder if a technical group for keyboards layouts would help >> this >> process. >> > > What might also help is a reconceptualization of these hacks as being in > effect non-standard character encodings: the existing software > infrastructure for handling charsets could then be co-opted to convert them > to (and possibly from) Unicode if desired. > > Neil > >
