At 11:26 PM 5/18/98 -0700, Anshuman Pandey wrote:
>I may have missed this somewhere along the line, so please pardon me if
>this is a FAQ:
>Why was TrueType chosen as the format for Unicode fonts? Will
>there be PostScript fonts available as well?
I fully agree with Ken Whistler's answer that
>TrueType wasn't "chosen" as the format for Unicode fonts.
>Fonts to cover one or more portions of the Unicode Standard
>repertoire are available in all current font technologies.
>TrueType is the preferred font technology for Windows, which
>is why it gets so much coverage and discussion on the list.
I'd also like to add my inevitable response to questions about "Unicode
fonts": it takes more than a font to support Unicode, especially when
outside of Western European languages and/or when doing publication-quality
output. It takes a text layout engine, some kind of character-glyph
mapping, font selection to account for national conventions in glyph
appearances (e.g. Chinese vs Japanese glyphs), and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, Adobe's future direction with type for Unicode systems is not
"TrueType vs PostScript", it is OpenType. We are working very closely with
Microsoft to define features in OpenType that will let us support larger
and larger portions of the Unicode code space with publication-quality
output. And we intend to release fonts in OpenType format that support
larger and larger portions of the Unicode code space.
For more information on Adobe's plans for OpenType, please consult:
Hope this helps,
--Jim DeLaHunt, Engineering Manager
Adobe Type Library, Adobe Systems Incorporated
M/S W-08, 345 Park Ave, San Jose, CA 95110-2702
email: email@example.com, tel: +1-408-536-2690
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT