John Hudson wrote (way back on 2001-04-15):
>
> Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft, and
> no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being added
> to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
> OpenType mark
> At 2001-04-18 08:49:40 -0600 John H. Jenkins wrote:
> The fundamental problem is that *everywhere* in the TrueType spec it is
> assumed that glyph indices are two bytes, and there are innumerable
> tables that reference glyph indices. Basically TrueType would have to
> be rewritten from scratch
> From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You ever notice how characters in different writing systems
> seem to be
> > made out of only a small number of parts? Like if you write
> an N backwards,
> > you get a Russian vowel,
>11 Digit Boy asked:
>> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
>
>BMP = 256 × 256 = 65536
>HI_SURROGS = 1024
>LO_SURROGS = 1024
>
>UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS × LO_SURROGS = 1114112
There are other ways to calculate:
17 * 65536 = 1,114,112
0x10 + 1 = 1,114,112 (decimal)
But we
11 Digit Boy asked:
> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 $B!_(J 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS $B!_(J LO_SURROGS = 1114112
Notice, however that they are characters, not glyphs. Also notice that they
are slightly fewer th
11 Digit Boy wrote:
> And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick
> for Kanji. I mean, how many times are you going to keep
> making that water radical?
This has been debated a lot of times. There were two separate stories about
this.
The first one was whether ideograph component
From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick for Kanji. I
mean, how many times are you going to keep making that water radical?
Its not all that great of a trick as far as I am concerned, but I am glad
you like it.
The known world is going
IL PROTECTED]>;[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Cc:
$BF|;~(B: 01/05/21 21:00
$B7oL>(B: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
>From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
>
>Unicode only defines c
From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
Unicode only defines characters, not glyphs.
> That is 1114112, I think.
Something like that. It looks nicer in hex.
> You ever notice how characters in different writing systems seem to be
made out
On 04/18/2001 09:49:40 AM John Jenkins wrote:
>At the same time, none of the people involved in defining TrueType --
>Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft -- believe that it is really a good idea to
>have a single font covering all of Unicode. Microsoft provides one
>because there has been a strong push
$B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
>> that
>> supports 0x100 glyphs:
$B#1#6#7#7#7#2#1#6!"$M!)(B
I can't do conversions.
$B$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i!#(B
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
That is 1114112, I think.
You ever notice how characters in different writing
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 08:10 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> James Kass wrote:
>>
>> No. The new cmap supports more than double-byte in order to access
>> non-BMP encodings. The Glyph IDs (the number/order of the glyphs
>> in a font) remain locked at 65536 max. Unfortunately this isn't
>
> Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
> his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
> this day.
>
Well, I've seen *something* in the (British) Science Museum, but whether
it's complete, or works, I can't remember.
It might be truer to say n
Edward Cherlin wrote
>Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
>his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
>this day.
But they did
quote from the Science Museum
"Analytical Engine Mill by Henry Prevost Babbage, 1910.
Babbage bequeathed h
In the early 1990s I did a small piece of research on devising a method of
inputting text in the Esperanto language into a PC using an ordinary English
keyboard.
Some aspects of that research now appear to be relevant to the present
discussion of implementing unicode 3.1 on older computer systems
At 10:26 AM -0700 4/18/01, John Hudson wrote:
>At 05:03 PM 4/18/2001 +0200, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
>>If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't hacked goldsmiths' punches and wine presses
>>(with the vile purpose of counterfeiting costly manuscript books!) we
>>wouldn't be here talking about the digital by-pr
MC> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
MC> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
MC> Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
MC> BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support
MC> on Linux, but I know that projects are
st
Cc: 'Carl W. Brown'; 'Kenneth Whistler'
Subject: RE: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
Carl Brown wrote:
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
> Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
> bill. Seriously I wou
Carl Brown wrote:
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
> Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
> bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
> idea.
Thanks, Carl, but if "these folks" is me, I don't even know what an IBM 1401
is, let alone
> How on earth can 'ideographs' be synthesized from consonants and
> vowels? Moreover, when I wrote that 'CJK don't always go together', I
> wasn't talking about Chinese characters(ideographs) at all. I was talking
> about Korean Hangul only (I think it was pretty clear in the part of
> my messa
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
> being
> > > done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
> >
> > As a general statement, I might agree to the abov
From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
> > done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
>
> As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However, I'm a bit
> confused as to what you're specifically talki
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
> > and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
>
> As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of thi
From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
> and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
michk
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Compared to the memory requirements for video, sound, and for data
> caching on servers, the memory requirements for Unicode per se
> tend to be down in the noise -- with the exception of those big
> CJK fonts.
Well, CJK don't always go together in
At 12:49 PM +0200 4/18/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>James Kass wrote:
>> > >..., the old 386's
>> > >... may not be able
>> > >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
> > >
>BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support on Linux,
>but I know that proje
Carl Brown said, in support of Michka cringing about segments:
> I agree.
>
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write Unicode for the
> IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the bill. Seriously I would never
> agree to such a ludicrous idea.
Exactly. How about an Apple II or
Peter Constable wrote:
> >> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
> >> code points).
> >This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
> Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch
> on. James is absolutely right.
Sorry, I have bee
Marco wrote:
> James Kass wrote:
> > > [...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
> > > implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
> >
> > It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
>
> Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
>
> I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
> gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
>
Levity helps, too.
>
>
> >If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
>
take lots of memory.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Michael (michka) Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:16 AM
To: Marco Cimarosti; Unicode List; 'James Kass'
Cc: Peter Constable
Subject: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: b
At 10:48 AM 4/18/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
> >> code points).
> >
> >This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
>
>Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
>a
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
> partial support for Unicode.
I shudder at this characterization, truly. :-)
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
Peter Constable wrote:
> Why would you encode presentation form glyphs in the PUA if you don't
> expect them to be encoded directly in documents. "Smart font"
> rendering systems map character codes into glyph ids, and so these
> glyphs don't need to be encoded in the cmap.
I may be wrong, but
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
MC> > >
> > > I thought that the PUA was being considered here as a place
> > to put the extra
> > > *glyphs* needed internally by a rendering engine -- not as
> > a direct mean of
> > > encoding text.
> >
JK>
> > In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped
On 04/18/2001 10:30:56 AM "James Kass" wrote:
>> Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the
slightest.
>> But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of
Unicode,
>> as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to
glyph
>> ID 20, which
At 08:30 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>I couldn't bring myself to call a masterpiece like mayan.ttf a hack:
>http://www.themeworld.com/cgi-bin/preview.pl/fonts/mayan.zip
>
>(Mayan is on the Roadmap to Plane One, but it doesn't look as
>though there's been any detailed proposal yet.)
I bel
>> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
>> code points).
>
>This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely right.
>The only possible way to display Unicode is
>Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
>If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
>systems, like Win 9x, the source page in true Unicode would
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the slightest.
> But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of Unicode,
> as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to glyph
> ID 20, which is clearly not a digit o
>Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
>doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
>Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
>> Pre-composed L
Peter Constable wrote:
> In newer software, our custom-encoded font practices are having
> their true identity revealed. They're hacks.
[...]
>If the quarriers hadn't conformed to the standards established by the
>architects, the pyramids would never have been built.
If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't
>> I've done it numerous times, and I still do it on occasion. I still call
it
>> a "hack", though, since that's what it is, in many cases at least: The
cmap
>> in TrueType fonts for Windows uses Unicode. People think they're putting
>> their favourite character on an 8-bit codepoint, but in the
James Kass wrote:
> > [...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
> > implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
>
> It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
> Funding makes the world r
At 05:18 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>There should be an English version of that page at the same site.
>Michael Everson has a proposal for the script which can be accessed
>from the Roadmap page at:
>http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/bmp-roadmap-table.html
>(I think it's Michael Evers
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
> Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
With Windows CE supporting Unicode, I think it would be cheaper to get *i
Roman Czyborra's Unifont, sorry for the typo.
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
> > invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
>
> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for i
At 02:07 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>Consider the following linked page:
>
>http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/hmong/hmongaustpahawh.html#pahawh
>
>If you want to view the page properly, you'll download their font.
>There is no alternative for web master or visitor.
>(I know
James Kass wrote:
> > >..., the old 386's
> > >... may not be able
> > >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
> >
> Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
> invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that i
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >..., the old 386's
> >... may not be able
> >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
>
> That is indeed a problem. It's not one that technologists are good at
> solving, if for no other reason than because they have little option but to
> develop
On 04/16/2001 09:02:16 PM unicode-bounce wrote:
>> How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches
up,
>> or you build your own (e.g. Graphite) and build apps that work on that.
I
>> suspect (or, at least, certainly hope) we'll see progress in this regard
in
>> IE 6.
>>
>
>> Whether the PUA or custom code pages are used, some kind of
>> software which converts to and from Unicode would be
>> helpful to assure that users of older hardware can continue
>> to communicate with the "modern" world.
[snip]
>since i'm not a programmer, I'm not able to throw together su
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Andrew also mentioned custom (8-bit) code pages, which are widely
> > used...
>
> actually i don't think they're widely used.
Widely used in general rather than any specific custom code
page use.
> But I'd rather not get into Sudanese politics at the moment.
Quoting James Kass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Waiting isn't much of an option, the users need results now.
> > Even when the rendering technology catches up, the old 386's
> and such that are in use in places like the Sudan may not be able
> to support an OS capable of using new rendering technolo
Quoting John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft,
> and
> no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being
> added
> to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
> OpenType mark-to-base
Peter Constable wrote:
Andrew C.>
> >This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
> and
> >some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
> one
> >handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
> and
> >where a prec
At 08:44 PM 4/15/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of languages with this
>issue. There's at least one language in Peru that has to stack diacritics
>three high!
>
>How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches up,
>or
>This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
>some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
>handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
>where a precomposed form does not exist?
There are literally
59 matches
Mail list logo
