The issue of font size vs. Unicode character count is not really
an issue. Translating from Unicode codepoints one-to-one to
glyph numbers in the font is only possible for low typographic
quality, a limited set of languages/scripts, and for very very
few fonts. All these restrictions make it very clear that any
sensible Unicode rendering engine should come with some
degree of font linking or font composition or however you
call it, which would include many variant of character-to-
glyph mapping so as to cover scripts such as Arabic,
Devanagari,..., glyph selection for Chinese/Japanese/Korean,
and so on.
>Hi. This was sent to me in response to the article in Wired -- I told him
>I THINK 2.0 supports variable length, but you would be better able to
>Subject: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation
>Sent: 08/27 11:54 PM
>Received: 08/28 12:22 AM
>From: David Beroff, firstname.lastname@example.org
>To: Jose Manuel Tesoro, email@example.com
>Interesting 16-bit vs. 32-bit issue for
>characters. (I guess nobody seriously
>considered 24-bit characters?)
>Anyway, I have an even more radical idea.
>Could Unicode support variable-length
>characters, so that one or more Unicode
>values would mean "shift"? This would
>allow quite a number of Chinese (etc.)
>characters to be represented in the
>second Unicode byte-pair.
>Or am I being way too whimsical?
>-- David Beroff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
---- Dr.sc. Martin J. Du"rst ' , . p y f g c R l / = Institut fu"r Informatik a o e U i D h T n S - der Universita"t Zu"rich ; q j k x b m w v z Winterthurerstrasse 190 (the Dvorak keyboard) CH-8057 Zu"rich-Irchel Tel: +41 1 257 43 16 S w i t z e r l a n d Fax: +41 1 363 00 35 Email: email@example.com ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT