Marion Gunn wrote:
> > Right now we have a mixed system: Unicode is open to accepting
> > characters from anyone who can prove something is a character,
> > but apparently accepts glyphs from those with enough clout, e.g.,
>
> Apparently.
Unicode was at one time open to the backward-compatibility argument,
but Unicode 3.0 is the last hurrah of that viewpoint, except for
a few random characters from obscure-but-standardized character
sets that still may need in.
> > Zapf Dingbats, or certain geometric shapes but not others. The
> > situation is made more complicated with TrueType expecting a
> > one-on-one mapping of glyphs to characters.
> >
> > Just my humble opinion.
> >
>
> With which I agree.
So much the worse for TrueType, and such a viewpoint plainly
will not handle decent Indic anyway (in either ISCII or Unicode), so
it will have to give way if it has not already done so.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge / Politzer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT