On Fri, 15 May 1998, Rick McGowan wrote:
> The "Unicode CMAP" is just a convenient crutch, isn't it? Fonts could
> implement glyph sets for Hieroglyphics or Linear B or whatever and not have a
> "Unicode CMAP". It should not matter what the encoding for surrogate codes
> is -- that's irrelevant as far as the FONT is concerned.
Having a 32bit wide cmap is even useful for non-Unicode encodings like
CCCII or CNS -- after hearing the sad news that even in Unicode 3.0 there
won't be surrogates at all, this really makes sense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT