Peter Constable wrote,
> > Code2000 does not contain Tibetan glyphs. But, Code2000 *is*
> > an OpenType font and has *many* OpenType tables in it
>
> It has exactly 3 OpenType-specific tables in it -- in the sense of the
> top-level tables that are listed in the table directory. Is that many?
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why would you think the creation of this site might suggest that
Microsoft is selling off its IP in relation to OpenType to Monotype? If
Motorola created a site www.pentium4.org, would you jump to the
conclusion that they were selling off that IP?
What al
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of James Kass
> Code2000 does not contain Tibetan glyphs. But, Code2000 *is*
> an OpenType font and has *many* OpenType tables in it
It has exactly 3 OpenType-specific tables in it -- in the sense of the
top-level tables that are l
There is a unicode equivalent to "dha": à U+0927
This is not for roman script, but for devangari.
I think the obvious thing to do if you want to sort in the Pali/Sanskrit
alphabetical (alphabetical is not quite the right word
here) order is having in the records for the words in your computer a f
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Philippe Verdy
> See www.opentype.org: OpenType is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
> (bottom of page)
> The handdrawn-like "O" is a logo used by Microsoft as the icon
representing
> OpenType fonts.
>
> However the OpenType w
Christopher Fynn wrote,
> Large "Pan-Unicode" fonts like "Arial Unicode MS" usually do not contain
> proper OpenType tables and ligatures for *all* the scripts the font
> covers. For example "Arial Unicode MS" and "Code 2000" contain glyphs
> for Tibetan script but they *do not* contain the Open
Philippe Verdy wrote:
However the OpenType web site is apparently fixed only to this
presentation page, with a single link to MonoType Corporation, not to
the previous documentation hosted by Microsoft.
Is Microsoft stopping supporting OpenType, and about to sell the
technology to the MonoType
From: "Theo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Asmus Freytag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So, despite it being UTF-8 case insensitive, it was totally blastingly
fast. (One person reported counting words at 1MB/second of pure text, from
within a mixed Basic / C environment). You'll need to keep in mind, that
the
To whom it may concern,
I writing because I would to know if someone can help with certain
Sanskrit/Pali characters in roman scripts. This to clarify how to be proceed in
setting up a Sanskrit/Pali -- English dictionary.
Most characters are simple, like vowels with macrons, or some letters that h
From: "Asmus Freytag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A simplistic model of the 'cost' for UTF-16 over UTF-32 would consider
1) 1 extra test per character (to see whether it's a surrogate)
2) special handling every 100 to 1000 characters (say 10 instructions)
3) additional cost of accessing 16-bit registers (p
From: "Gary P. Grosso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: OpenType vs TrueType (was current version of unicode-font)
Hi Antoine, others,
Questions about OpenType vs TrueType come up often in my work, so perhaps
the list will suffer a c
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Christopher Fynn
> If a Windows application needs to properly display Unicode text for
> languages such as Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Nepali, Sinhala, Arabic, Urdu
> and so on then it probably needs to support OpenType GSUB and GPOS
lo
"Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Decoding SCSU is very straightforward,
But not for random access by code point index, which is needed by many
string APIs.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
RE: Nicest UTFFrom: Lars Kristan
I agree. But not for reasons you mentioned. There is one other important
advantage:
UTF-8 is stored in a way that permits storing invalid sequences. I will
need to
elaborate that, of course.
Not true for UTF-8. UTF-8 can only store valid sequences of code points,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Tom Gewecke
> For example, the font Doulos SIL Regular.ttf has layout tables for
OpenType
> (Windows), AAT (Mac), and Graphite (for SIL WorldPad).
Which I think is a first: I'm not sure there are many fonts that have
tables to sup
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I appreciate Philippe's support of SCSU, but I don't think *even I*
would recommend it as an internal storage format. The effort to encode
and decode it, while by no means Herculean as often perceived, is not
trivial once you step outside Latin-1.
I said: "fo
Gary P. Grosso wrote:
Hi Antoine, others,
Questions about OpenType vs TrueType come up often in my work, so
perhaps the list will suffer a couple of questions in that regard.
First, I see an "O" icon, not an "OT" icon in Windows' "Fonts folder"
for some fonts and a "TT" icon for others. Nothin
Christi wrote:
>I for sure was confused some time ago, because the true .otf font files
>have the same icon.
Another dimension of confusion is that .otf doesn't necessarily say
anything about what, if any, sort of opentype layout capabilities might be
present in a font. It just means it uses Pos
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:15:07 +0200, Cristian Secară wrote:
> I for sure was confused some time ago, because the true .otf font files
> have the same icon.
Hm.
When I double-click on a font, it tells me this (example)
===
Courier New (Open Type)
OpenType Font, Digitally Signed, TrueType Outlines
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:21:44 -0800, Peter Constable wrote:
> Indeed, the icon shows "O"; I have no idea where the reference to "OT"
> originated.
I for sure was confused some time ago, because the true .otf font files
have the same icon.
Cristi
I feel the need to correct one misperception:
Lars Kristan wrote:
4.1 - UTF-32 is probably very useful for certain string operations.
Changing case for example. You can do it in-place, like you could with
ASCII. Perhaps it can even be done in UTF-8, I am not sure. But even if
it is possible toda
On Thursday 2004.12.02 15:51:14 -0800, Richard Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Cowan xiele:
>
> > Paul Hastings scripsit:
> >
> > > speaking of which, *are* there any open source fonts that come even
> > > close to Arial Unicode MS?
In the section on "Pan Unicode Fonts" on
http://eyegene.
RE: Nicest UTF
- Original Message -
From: Lars Kristan
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: Nicest UTF
Theodore H. Smith wrote:
> What would be the nicest UTF to use?
>
> I think UTF8 would be the nicest UTF.
>
> I agree. But not for reasons you me
Gary P. Grosso wrote:
First, I see an "O" icon, not an "OT" icon in Windows' "Fonts folder" for some fonts and a "TT" icon for others. Nothing looks like "OT" to me, so are we talking about the same thing?
Next, if I double-click on one of the "fonts" (files), I get a window which shows a sample
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Gary P. Grosso
> Questions about OpenType vs TrueType come up often in my work, so
perhaps the list
> will suffer a couple of questions in that regard.
>
> First, I see an "O" icon, not an "OT" icon in Windows' "Fonts folder"
for
That's a good response. I would add a couple of other factors:
- What APIs will you be using? If most of the APIs take/return a particular
UTF, the cost of constant conversions will swamp many if not most other
performance considerations.
- Asmus mentioned memory, but I'd like to add to that. When
From: Asmus Freytag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I use ... and UTF-32 for most internal processing that I write
myself. Let people say UTF-32 is wasteful if they want; I don't tend
to
store huge amounts of text in memory at once, so the overhead is much
less important than one code unit per character.
F
Peter Constable quoted Peter R.
Mueller-Roemer:
>> SIL-fonts and TITUS have been called legacy or not up to date in our
>> forum
>
> What about the SIL and TITUS fonts is legacy?
There was a confused discussion last week over SIL Ezra and Ezra SIL,
and the fact that the older one used PUA code p
On 03/12/2004 09:40, Peter R. Mueller-Roemer wrote:
...
With bwhebb.ttf I had success!
But I don't think this is "open" in the sense you mean. It is, I think,
a part of the commercial package BibleWorks, and not in the public
domain. It is also a legacy font which uses Unicode Latin-1 code point
Hi Antoine, others,
Questions about OpenType vs TrueType come up often in my work, so perhaps the
list will suffer a couple of questions in that regard.
First, I see an "O" icon, not an "OT" icon in Windows' "Fonts folder" for some
fonts and a "TT" icon for others. Nothing looks like "OT" to m
At 09:56 PM 12/2/2004, Doug Ewell wrote:
I use ... and UTF-32 for most internal processing that I write
myself. Let people say UTF-32 is wasteful if they want; I don't tend to
store huge amounts of text in memory at once, so the overhead is much
less important than one code unit per character.
Fo
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Peter R. Mueller-Roemer
> Sorry! I double-clicked on its icon - whith a
> colored "OT" - in \WINDOWS\Fonts again it says after version 1.xx
> "(Opent Type)". I took that to mean Open Source or something more open
> than MS's restri
On Friday, December 03, 2004 13:10, Cristian Secară va escriure:
>
> However, the .ttf fonts that ship with their products are showing an
> OT icon. I don't know how it's done technically.
Technically, it is done by including a (valid) 'DSIG' (digital signature)
subtable into the font file, that i
Title: RE: Nicest UTF
Theodore H. Smith wrote:
> What would be the nicest UTF to use?
>
> I think UTF8 would be the nicest UTF.
>
I agree. But not for reasons you mentioned. There is one other important advantage: UTF-8 is stored in a way that permits storing invalid sequences. I will ne
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:10:37 +0200, "Cristian Secarã" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:51:42 -0800, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > Microsoft has never used the label 'OpenFont' for this or any of the
> > fonts that ship with their products.
>
> However, the .ttf fonts that ship with their products
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:51:42 -0800, Peter Constable wrote:
> Microsoft has never used the label 'OpenFont' for this or any of the
> fonts that ship with their products.
However, the .ttf fonts that ship with their products are showing an OT
icon. I don't know how it's done technically.
Cristi
> Arial Unicode MS version 1.01 is most current and shipped with Office
> 2003. I called it OpenFont. Sorry! I double-clicked on its icon -
> whith a colored "OT" - in \WINDOWS\Fonts again it says after version
> 1.xx "(Opent Type)". I took that to mean Open Source or something
> more open than MS'
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:56:28 -0800, "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>
> This thread amuses me.
>
Me too, but then most threads on this list do ;)
>
> I also think that as more and more Han characters are encoded in the
> supplementary space, corresponding to the ever-growing repretoires of
> Eastern standa
Thanks for the many replies. I learned that
Arial Unicode MS version 1.01 is most current and shipped with Office 2003.
I called it OpenFont. Sorry! I double-clicked on its icon - whith a
colored "OT" - in \WINDOWS\Fonts again it says after version 1.xx
"(Opent Type)". I took that to mean Open So
39 matches
Mail list logo
