Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>> UTF-166,634,430 bytes
>> UTF-87,637,601 bytes
>> SCSU6,414,319 bytes
>> BOCU-15,897,258 bytes
>> Legacy encoding (*)5,477,432 bytes
>> (*) KS C 5601, KS X 1001, or EUC-KR)
>
> What is the size of gzip these? Just wonder
> gzip of UTF-16
> gzi
My 2 piastres' worth:
HTML was never intended to provide Web authors with 100% complete
control over fonts. The end user was supposed to be able to choose her
preferred font, typically one for "normal" text and another for
monospaced text.
Because of this, embedded-font mechanisms like WEFT will
- Message d'origine -
De: "Christopher John Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, some fonts would be better than none
> > (and they have to be made so that
> > the Unicode standard be printed).
>
> In the case of complex scripts, a font sufficie
Frank Yung-Fong Tang writes:
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > Frank Yung-Fong Tang writes:
> > > But how about the UTF-16 vs UCS4 battle?
> >
> > Forget it: nearly nobody uses UCS-4 except very internally for string
> > processing at the character level. For whole strings, nearly everybody
> >
Patrick Andries writes:
> > Using the official Unicode script name in English is not a problem.
>
> So you say.
>
> > But a OS vendor could as well choose to translate these names in
> > localized versions of this font if the OS itself is translated.
>
> Which seems more logical and slighty cont
"Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, some fonts would be better than none
> (and they have to be made so that
> the Unicode standard be printed).
In the case of complex scripts, a font sufficient to print a code chart is
nowhere near adequate to render that script properly.
If you code
- Message d'origine -
De: "Christopher John Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's plain silly to expect support for every Unicode character to be
present on
> every platform and in every application "right out of the box" soon after
> characters are officially encoded in the Unicode Standard,
I particularly like the use of U+E631 SEUSS LETTER WUM for the PUA.
~mark
On 12/02/03 14:03, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:35 -0800 2003-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
Have you looked at the Apple Last Resort font? Knowing from what
character block an unsupported character comes is handy, but I
wou
On 12/02/03 18:32, Philippe Verdy wrote:
One way to achieve this is to only allow embedding of embeddable fonts
within unmodifiable documents. This means a "export for publication"
function in word processors, which should be the only way to create first a
unmodifiable and signed document content,
"Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why I think that font design providers (Adobe, Agfa MonoType, ...)
> should agree on a common format to allow authors to distribute freely the
> documents they create with these font designs. Then it's up to them to
> cooperate with operat
This may be the fault of the application not Windows. Many Windows applications
do not take advantage of the support for Unicode, OpenType layout, and font
linking which is present in Windows 2000 & XP.
It's plain silly to expect support for every Unicode character to be present on
every platform
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Frank Yung-Fong Tang writes:
> > But how about the UTF-16 vs UCS4 battle?
>
> Forget it: nearly nobody uses UCS-4 except very internally for string
> processing at the character level. For whole strings, nearly everybody
> uses
> UTF-16 as it performs better with l
- Original Message -
From: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 2 déc. 2003 16:44
Subject: RE: MS Windows and Unicode 4.0 ?
> Michael Everson writes:
> > At 15:14 -0800 2003-12-02, Patrick Andrie
come on, use "language specific glyph substution" on the last resort
font to show Irish last resort glyph if the language is Irish. I know
OpenType have it. Does AAT support language specific features?
John Jenkins wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2003, at 4:34 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > At 15
At 03:32 PM 12/2/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
So there's an urgent need for authors to get solutions. It's up to font
designers to provide a texhnical solution that allows them to license their
font designs to authors once, and give these authors the freedom to sell or
broadcast the documents they
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
>That's why I think that font design providers (Adobe, Agfa MonoType,
...)
>should agree on a common format to allow authors to distribute freely
the
>documents they create with these font designs.
The TrueType form
Frank Yung-Fong Tang writes:
> But how about the UTF-16 vs UCS4 battle?
Forget it: nearly nobody uses UCS-4 except very internally for string
processing at the character level. For whole strings, nearly everybody uses
UTF-16 as it performs better with less memory costs, and because UCS-4 is
not ne
Michael Everson writes:
> At 15:14 -0800 2003-12-02, Patrick Andries wrote:
>
> > > Actually, if you look at the Last Resort Glyphs (at a large enough
> >> size) you will see that the block name and range numbers are part of
> >> the image. See http://developer.apple.com/fonts/LastResortFont/
>
> That's why I think that font design providers (Adobe, Agfa MonoType, ...)
> should agree on a common format to allow authors to distribute freely the
> documents they create with these font designs. Then it's up to them to
> cooperate with operating system vendors so that these OS will be able to
Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 02/12/2003 14:19, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> >
> > A better approach than asking "Does product X support Unicode 4.0"
> > which in some way you can always get a NO answer is to
> > 1. Define a smaller set of functionality (Such as MES-1, MES-2, MES-3A)
> > 2. A
On Dec 2, 2003, at 4:34 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
At 15:14 -0800 2003-12-02, Patrick Andries wrote:
> Actually, if you look at the Last Resort Glyphs (at a large enough
size) you will see that the block name and range numbers are part of
the image. See http://developer.apple.com/fonts/LastRes
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> Then, Frank, the Tcl implementation is *not valid UTF-8* and needs to be
> fixed. Plain and simple. If a system like Tcl only supports the BMP,
> that is its choice, but it *must not* accept non-shortest UTF-8 forms or
> output CESU-8
"Language Analysis Systems, Inc." writes
> I'm not sure whether we're witnessing a customer-unfriendly change in
> the business model (hardly the only one the computer industry has
> foisted on us) or merely a transitional period while technologies are
> still being developed. For my part, I'd lik
On 02/12/2003 14:19, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
A better approach than asking "Does product X support Unicode 4.0"
which in some way you can always get a NO answer is to
1. Define a smaller set of functionality (Such as MES-1, MES-2, MES-3A)
2. Ask 'Does Product X Support MES-1? Does Product X S
At 15:14 -0800 2003-12-02, Patrick Andries wrote:
> Actually, if you look at the Last Resort Glyphs (at a large enough
size) you will see that the block name and range numbers are part of
the image. See http://developer.apple.com/fonts/LastResortFont/
I believe the name is in English.
That's co
Someone else originated that list.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Yung-Fong Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unicode Mailing
On Dec 2, 2003, at 3:57 PM, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
Think about this, while Microsoft support Unicode cmap and really
encourage people to use Unicode, they ALSO publish the WGL4 and the
OpenType font spec for different script. They also say which format a
font SHOULD support in TTF cmap. That
- Message d'origine -
De: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 14:23 -0800 2003-12-02, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> > > It's better than not knowing what range the thing is in. It helps the
> > > user know he has received, say, Telugu data or whatever.
> >
> >Only if the user
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 14:23 -0800 2003-12-02, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> > > It's better than not knowing what range the thing is in. It helps
> the
> > > user know he has received, say, Telugu data or whatever.
> >
> >Only if the user know what Telugu may look like. How many
John Jenkins wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2003, at 4:24 PM, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> > John What 'cmap' format Apple use in the MacOS X
> > Devanagari and Bangla fonts?
> >
>
> The formats are irrelevant; the Mac supports all the 'cmap' subtable
> formats for all subtables. For rendering c
At 14:23 -0800 2003-12-02, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
> It's better than not knowing what range the thing is in. It helps the
> user know he has received, say, Telugu data or whatever.
Only if the user know what Telugu may look like. How many users other
than those sign up the Unicode malling l
Mark Davis wrote:
> > >> UTF-166,634,430 bytes
> > >> UTF-87,637,601 bytes
> > >> SCSU6,414,319 bytes
> > >> BOCU-15,897,258 bytes
> > >> Legacy encoding (*)5,477,432 bytes
> > >> (*) KS C 5601, KS X 1001, or EUC-KR)
What is the size of gzip these? Just wonder
gzip
A better approach than asking "Does product X support Unicode 4.0"
which in some way you can always get a NO answer is to
1. Define a smaller set of functionality (Such as MES-1, MES-2, MES-3A)
2. Ask 'Does Product X Support MES-1? Does Product X Support MES-2?
I think that kind of question i
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> It's better than not knowing what range the thing is in. It helps the
> user know he has received, say, Telugu data or whatever.
Only if the user know what Telugu may look like. How many users other
than those sign up the Unicode malling list know the shape of more
Title: RE: MS Windows and Unicode 4.0 ?
A few corrections to your version of history below +++
Chris Pratley
Group Program Manager,
Microsoft Word, Publisher, OneNote
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Philippe Ver
At 11:23 AM 12/2/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
At 13:45 -0500 2003-12-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apple's (or in fact Michael Everson's) Last Resort font, though,
doesn't provide even bare legibility: all the characters in a given
script look alike! The most it tells you is what script the c
At 12:16 -0800 2003-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
There is a difference between 'providing a fallback font for every
character', which suggests to me a font that actually displays those
characters, and one that displays a box telling you what Unicode
range the unsupported character comes from.
Cert
At 12:10 -0800 2003-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
No argument there. As a last resort, the Last Resort font is a good
idea and well executed. But it is still a means of displaying an
*unsupported* character, not a way of supporting that character.
Well, there may be other support. The undisplayable
At 11:03 AM 12/2/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
Have you looked at the Apple Last Resort font? Knowing from what
character block an unsupported character comes is handy, but I wouldn't
equate a little box with a picture and a Unicode range name with actually
displaying, however poorly, a specific
Peter Jacobi wrote:
> Envoyé : mardi 2 décembre 2003 14:30
> À : Markus Scherer
> Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: no more precomposed characters for 1:1 conversion
>
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> Markus Scherer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ICU 2.8 has the ability to handle m:n character conversion
At 13:45 -0500 2003-12-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apple's (or in fact Michael Everson's) Last Resort font, though,
doesn't provide even bare legibility: all the characters in a given
script look alike! The most it tells you is what script the characters
are in, so that you have some clue ab
>>Consider the literary equivalent...
>
>I don't think your analogy is all that great.
There is one thing I think is interesting and valuable about this
analogy. In traditional publishing, it's incumbent on the publisher or
author to marshal whatever fonts and other technologies are necessary to
At 10:35 -0800 2003-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
Have you looked at the Apple Last Resort font? Knowing from what
character block an unsupported character comes is handy, but I
wouldn't equate a little box with a picture and a Unicode range name
with actually displaying, however poorly, a specific
Mac OS X currently supports Unicode in all Cocoa applications. Unicode
support in Carbon applications depends on the application; the Finder
and iTunes are examples of Carbon applications that support Unicode.
Apple is migrating all of its applications to Unicode and strongly
encourages develop
Arcane Jill scripsit:
> You see, I'm not talking about "good" fonts, just "basic" fonts. In
> fact, _/any/_ fonts. Essentially, I expect every character to display,
> albeit poorly, but to display. I expect the operating system to provide
> a fallback font for every character. The Macintosh doe
At 09:07 AM 12/2/2003, Arcane Jill wrote:
You misunderstand me. Whilst I have no objection to paying for ADDED
value, I'm talking about what comes built in, out of the box.
Everything in the box is added value. Only the box is free. :)
You see, I'm not talking about "good" fonts, just "basic" fo
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Arcane Jill
>You misunderstand me. Whilst I have no objection to paying for ADDED
value, I'm >talking about what comes built in, out of the box.
So, out of the box, Windows XP does not support (e.g.) Sinhalese, or
ship with Sinhalese
You misunderstand me. Whilst I have no objection to paying for ADDED
value, I'm talking about what comes built in, out of the box.
Consider the literary equivalent. Suppose I went to a library and
borrowed a book, took it home, and attempted to read it (the real world
equivalent of viewing a
Peter Jacobi wrote:
Markus Scherer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ICU 2.8 has the ability to handle m:n character conversion mappings driven
by simple lines in
Unicode conversion tables (text files).
That's a nice coincidence, to have this feature. I was wondering
if this would enable transcoding fr
Last time I looked TrueDoc did not not work well with fonts for Unicode ranges
beyond Latin-1.
and for IE it requires the installation of an ActiveX component on client
machines. You may also need to purchase software to make embeddeble fonts that
work with TrueDoc.
Please see: http://www.micros
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Arcane Jill
>Anyone know the current status on embedded fonts in web pages? ...
If you go to
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=fonttoo
llinks you'll find some links to sites for tools for font use on the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Arcane Jill
>Damn right.
Your charm is most compelling.
>In particular, I want all the math characters working
And what, might I ask, is your understanding of "all the math characters
working"?
>and all the musical symbols worki
Thanks.
On the positive side, I just did the experiment, and the page viewed
correctly in Internet Explorer 6.0, although it did ask me to install a
plugin first. Unfortunately, it didn't work in Firebird :-(
Jill
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I use Microsoft WEFT to embed fonts. I have had complaints that it does
not
> run on non-Windows platforms but then Bitstream does not either. The
> problem with Bitstream is that it requires an active-x control to be
> installed and many people will n
Jill,
I use
Microsoft WEFT to embed fonts. I have had complaints that it does not run
on non-Windows platforms but then Bitstream does not either. The problem
with Bitstream is that it requires an active-x control to be installed and many
people will not do that. WEFT is also free.
Tr
Arcane Jill scripsit:
> Frustrated with all these unrelated side-issues, I decided to try Google
> instead. (Google often gives better answers about things than specialist
> lists!). I found a really good demo of exactly what I was after at
> "http://www.truedoc.com/webpages/intro/";. Of course
Um...
This specialist list discusses Unicode, which, last I looked, had something
to do with encoding characters. Of course both fonts and Web pages use
Unicode, but that doesn't mean that this list specializes in either. There
are other specialist lists that discuss Web pages, fonts and other suc
Raymond Mercier writes:
> Of course Adobe was designed to do just the problem
> you defined, and it works well, with your embedded fonts,
> etc., so the recipient sees just what you write.
>
> OTOH What about using Word with your embedded fonts, and
> then saving it as mht (Web Archive File)?
Hi Markus,
Markus Scherer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ICU 2.8 has the ability to handle m:n character conversion mappings driven
> by simple lines in
> Unicode conversion tables (text files).
That's a nice coiincidence, to have this feature. I was wondering
if this would enable transcoding fro
Michael (michka) Kaplan writes:
> I know I'll end up regretting this
Why do you regret it? I know that you work for Microsoft, but I don't think
you can imply things that Microsoft has not claimed to have done in its
systems.
> From: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That far? So wh
Arcane Jill writes:
> Anyone know the current status on embedded fonts in web pages?
> I basically have two questions.
> (1) Assume the existence of a font to which I legally own the
> copyright. For example, let's say I invented it. Now, I design
> a web page which uses this font. Now, it's easy
Aaargh! No it doesn't PLEASE stop filling this thread with stuff
which does not address the original question. I am interested in WEB
PAGES. Nothing else. Not Acrobat Files. Not Word files. Nothing. JUST
WEB PAGES. If you can't do it on a bog standard HTML page, it's not
answering the ques
Of course Adobe was designed to do just the problem you
defined, and it works well, with your embedded fonts, etc., so the recipient
sees just what you write.
OTOH What about using Word with your embedded fonts, and then
saving it as mht (Web Archive File)?
Have a look at:
http://www.s
Arcane Jill writes:
> Forgive my ignorance.
> What is ICU?
> (I like to know what something is before I download it).
This is a free implementation of algorithms for internationalization
including Unicode. See:
http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/
Quote:
"The International Components for Unicode (ICU
The use of PDF files does solve a problem, yes, but it solves a
different problem from the one about which I had asked. I
specifically want to know the current state-of-the-art regarding the
use of fonts on web pages. I believe someone was working
on this, but I don't know if it was the W3C or
Dear Sir,
Can you let us know about how we can have support of Unicode in MacOSX?
What are the tools to create OTF for MacOSX and What are the tools for
developing Keyboard for Uniocde under MAC OS X. What are the tools Apple is
providing like VOLT and MSKLC?
What are the applications supports U
Surely Adobe Acrobat will solve both problems ?
The recipient only needs to have the Acrobat Reader installed,
and who does not already have that ?
Raymond Mercier
- Original Message -
From:
Arcane
Jill
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:29
A
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Markus Scherer wrote:
> Question: Is the ISO-2022-CN or ISO-2022-CN-EXT charset for Chinese actually used
> significantly?
With 'significantly' at the end, the answer is absolutely NO.
Even without it, I think the answer would still be very definitive NO.
If you count X11
Anyone know the current status on embedded fonts
in web pages?
I basically have two questions. (1) Assume the existence of a font to
which I legally own the copyright. For example, let's say I invented
it. Now, I design a web page which uses this font. Now, it's easy (but terribly
inconvenient
Damn right. I would like to know this too. In particular, I want all
the math characters working, and all the musical symbols working. Note
that many of these are not in the BMP. I want to be able to put these
characters on web pages, and know that they will be displayed correctly
on my own ch
Forgive my ignorance.
What is ICU?
(I like to know what something is before I download it).
Jill
> -Original Message-
> From: Markus Scherer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:36 PM
> To: unicode
> Subject: no more precomposed characters for 1:1 conversion
>
>
>
71 matches
Mail list logo
