Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:34:56 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber) Cc: jehamby@lightside.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) Message-ID: <199602272034.NAA05680@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960227084804.250A-100000@fieber-john.campusview.indiana.edu> from "John Fieber" at Feb 27, 96 09:14:17 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > system, unified TrueType font system, OLE). Now I agree that, for example, > > With respect to fonts, that is in the domain of X which already handles > bitmap, Adobe, speedo, and I'm not aware of any technical prolems with > adding truetype, but what does the application care anyway? X is a fixed cell rendering technology; that is, unlike PostScript, glyphs are downloaded to cell-based fonts (or rendered there, in the TrueType case). This is, strictly speaking, incompatible with a large number of non-8-bit ligatured languages (though compatible with CJK glyphs) because of the location of "private use areas" relative to the ligatured languages character sets in the Unicode standard. Unicode is largely "anti-X" in these cases because of an intrinsic bias toward glyph rendering engines using other than fixed-cell techniques (understandable, considering who is behing Unicode). These languages include Sanskrit, Hebrew, Arabic, Tamil, Devengari, and other Indic scripts, etc.. Look no farther than the contrib program "xtamil" for a demonstration of the hoops required. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602272034.NAA05680>