On Jul 3, 11:02pm, Markus Kuhn wrote:
Antoine Leca wrote:
> > Unicode is a set of characters, not glyphs, isn't it?
> > So the lack of glyphs can't be used to say that NT isn't
> > full-Unicode.
> A full Unicode implementation must be able to adequately visually
Glyphs are visual representations. Antoine is correct.
A Unicode implementation musytt be able to handle the characters -
manipulate them. Visual representation is outside the scope of a
character set standard.
As an example, I have a student writing an application that will be somewhat
Unicode compatible but will not be able to visually represent any of the
~40000 Unicode characters.
It will be able to speak some of them, however.
> I do not see any implementation that comes even close to fully
> implement Unicode.
I suggest you take a look at the Tango browser form Alis.
> My e-mail MIME header will announce that this posting is in the
> ISO 15646-1 character set, and we do not have to talk any more
> about "the Unicode subset that Windows-NT 4.0 currently supports in
> more than a third of its fonts".
;-) a bold vision, and certainly possible
-- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C firstname.lastname@example.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT