> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It's interesting to note what the SVGMobile spec has to say about SVG
> fonts:
>
>
> SVGB and SVGT support a subset of SVG fonts where only the 'd' attribute
> on the 'glyph' and 'missing-glyph' elements is available. Arbitrary
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Mete Kural
> Are you sure about this? As far as I understand SVG can be used to
embed
> font definitions in a platform-independent manner.
Embed in *what*? Sure, SVG is platform independent insofar as it is a
spec that is not depe
I strongly doubt that any OS would want to support SVG fonts natively.
At best, they might choose to include a utility that would transform the
font into form more useful for itself. There are two major problems
with SVG fonts.
1) Lack of hinting - Without the ability to hint, getting fonts to l
Hello All,
> Although the SVG font specification may come from a standards body
> [W3C] afaik SVG fonts are only of any use if you want to embed the
> font definitions in an SVG file where the font is used. There
> doesn't seem to be anything that actually makes use of them in any
> other kin
On 03/03/2004 11:27, Antoine Leca wrote:
Frank Yung-Fong Tang va escriure:
Does it also mean wchar_t is 4 bytes if __STDC_ISO_10646__ is defined?
or does it only mean wchar_t hold the character in ISO_10646
(which mean it could be 2 bytes, 4 bytes or more than that?)
The later. But if wch
Clark Cox wrote on 3/3/2004, 4:33 PM:
[I swap the reply order to make my new question clearer]
> >
> > And what does the year and month mean?
>
> It indicates which version of ISO10646 is used by the implementation.
> In the above example, it indicates whatever version was in effect in
> De
>Frank Yung-Fong Tang va escriure:
>> For example, we can standarlized a set of Arabic glyphs with their
>> encoding.
>
>Think about Nastaliq (rather than Naskh). There is simply no way to have it
>done. Too much possibilities.
Yes I think it would be impractical to standardize a set of Arabic gl
Hello,
I am posting your question to the Unicode public list for possible
answer from one of our list subscribers.
Regards,
Magda Danish
Administrative Director
The Unicode Consortium
650-693-3921
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Date/Time:Tue Mar 2 23:39:29 EST 2004
Contact:
On Mar 03, 2004, at 14:13, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
Clark Cox wrote on 3/3/2004, 1:28 PM:
From the C standard:
__STDC_ISO_10646_ _An integer constant of the formmmL(for example,
199712L), intended to indicate that values of type wchar_t are the
coded representations of the characters de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Can you please stop sending messages to this mailing list in HTML
only? Either
plain text only, or -- less desirable -- plain text plus HTML, please.)
(I broadcast this only because a number of people have recently
starting sending HTML messages to the list, several of
On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 7:28 PM Clark Cox va escriure:
> From the C standard:
>
> __STDC_ISO_10646_
The current text is publicly available at
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_273.htm>
Please use the reformed form (at the end) in place of the old one.
Thanks in advance.
[sorry for the involontary x-post]
Frank Yung-Fong Tang va escriure:
> For example, we can standarlized a set of Arabic glyphs with their
> encoding.
Think about Nastaliq (rather than Naskh). There is simply no way to have it
done. Too much possibilities.
Idem for Latin (resp. Cyrillic, resp. Gr
Frank Yung-Fong Tang va escriure:
> Does it also mean wchar_t is 4 bytes if __STDC_ISO_10646__ is defined?
> or does it only mean wchar_t hold the character in ISO_10646
> (which mean it could be 2 bytes, 4 bytes or more than that?)
The later. But if wchar_t is 16 bits, it can only encode Unicode
So that mean __STDC_ISO_10646__ defined may not be UCS4 but UCS2 or
UTF-16, right?
Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote on 3/3/2004, 1:49 PM:
> "Frank Yung-Fong Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks on Wed, 3 Mar 2004
> 12:38:49
> -0500:
>
> >> Does it also mean wchar_t is 4 bytes if __STDC_ISO_10646__ is
>
Clark Cox wrote on 3/3/2004, 1:28 PM:
> From the C standard:
>
> __STDC_ISO_10646_ _An integer constant of the formmmL(for example,
> 199712L), intended to indicate that values of type wchar_t are the
> coded representations of the characters defined by ISO/IEC10646, along
> with all a
"Frank Yung-Fong Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks on Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:38:49
-0500:
>> Does it also mean wchar_t is 4 bytes if __STDC_ISO_10646__ is defined?
>> or does it only mean wchar_t hold the character in ISO_10646
>> (which mean it could be 2 bytes, 4 bytes or more than that?)
Here is the
From the C standard:
__STDC_ISO_10646_ _An integer constant of the formmmL(for example,
199712L), intended to indicate that values of type wchar_t are the
coded representations of the characters defined by ISO/IEC10646, along
with all amendments and technical corrigenda as of the specified
oh. This is the first time I hear about this. Thanks about your
information. Does it also mean wchar_t is 4 bytes if __STDC_ISO_10646__
is defined? or does it only mean wchar_t hold the character in ISO_10646
(which mean it could be 2 bytes, 4 bytes or more than that?)
Noah Levitt wrote on 3/2/
Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
> And I am sure the following DOES NOT exist although I hope there we can
> have one day- Glyph Encoding Standard. Map a glyph to a fixed glyph ID.
> (The Arabic presentation block A and B sort of like this one) For example,
> it will be much easier for people to under
C J Fynn wrote on 3/3/2004, 11:41 AM:
> Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> > And I am sure the following DOES NOT exist although I hope there
> > we can have one day- Glyph Encoding Standard. Map a glyph to
> > a fixed glyph ID. (The Arabic presentation block A and B sort of
> > like this on
Frank Yung-Fong Tang scripsit:
(Can you please stop sending messages to this mailing list in HTML only? Either
plain text only, or -- less desirable -- plain text plus HTML, please.)
> Also, there are other "standard" about the font:
> 1. Glyph set "standard"- how to make sure one font contains
Hello All,
Thank you very much for providing your insight. So it seems like there are several
technologies and some may be considered to be a standard to an extent, but there seems
to be really no true standard font format - in the way that HTML is a standard - that
makes it possible to build f
C J Fynn va escriure:
> [ The only thing there has been any real controversy or concern about
> are three Apple patents relating to grid fitting glyph outlines of
> TrueType fonts (see: http://www.freetype.org/patents.html )
> Also AFAIK Apple have never threatned anyone with
> enforcement of the
BDF is also widly used,
although the quality and features is not that powerful these day.
Also, there are other "standard" about the font:
1. Glyph set "standard"- how to make sure one font contains all the
glyph for a particular group of users- for example- WGL4 is a glyph set
standard from M
Not sure exactly what you are looking for because "Font Technology" covers a broad spectrum, but a *simplified* picture might be something like the following:
First, we should distinguish bitmap font technologies from scalable font technologies ... I assume you are more interested in the latter.
25 matches
Mail list logo
