----- Message d'origine ----- De: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patric Andries continued: Okay, okay I'll keep quite (for a whileâ) > > > On Dec 2, 2003, at 7:35 PM, Patrick Andries wrote: > > > > > > > Well, some fonts would be better than none (and they have to be made > > > > so that > > > > the Unicode standard be printed). > > > > > > > > > > The Unicode standard doesn't require Unicode to be printed. A lot of > > > the fonts used to print the book are Windows symbols fonts, with the > > > code chart-generating code automatically remapping them as needed. > > > > I didn't mean to imply this, but I believe this indexing is a minor effort > > when compared to the font drawing aspect and those fonts, > > True, but... > > A. Many of these fonts are encumbered with highly restricted licenses > and IP agreements enabling use *only* for publication of the standards > (Unicode *and* 10646). > > B. The management of the fonts for the publication of the standards is > already a resource-bound task that is somewhat of a QA nightmare and > which contributes significantly to the time it takes to produce each > new version of the standard. There are no extra cycles here to devote > to also trying to repackage and market these fonts for general use, > *even if* they weren't encumbered by license agreements. I never meant or said this to be a Unicode consortium project, what I intended to say is that these basic fonts could not be very expensive for *someone* to provide : original font designers that supplied it to the Unicode consortium or â for instance â the OS manufacturers licensing them from those font designers as more helpful last resort fonts. P. A.
