Re: Latin ligatures and Unicode

From: John Jenkins (
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 13:41:21 EST

on 12/29/99 4:22 PM, Kenneth Whistler at wrote:

> I don't think this "if and only if" statement can hold for Unicode
> implementations in general. Bitmap fonts would be hard-pressed to
> deal with the minimal display requirements for many complex scripts,
> but it is not beyond the realm of engineering possibility to keep
> extending existing approaches. For complex scripts it just isn't worth
> the effort, basically, when better approaches using "smart" outline
> fonts exist.

While I freely allow that I was overstating my case -- it isn't Unicode
support that requires a complex rendering engine, but full support for
rendering the entire range of scripts include in Unicode, I'd just like to
clarify --

Both AAT and OT allow for bitmap fonts that have all the smarts needed to
render anything in Unicode properly. The distinction isn't between stupid
bitmap fonts and smart outline fonts, it's between stupid fonts and smart

(Or stupid rendering engines and smart ones. And what's the point of
discussing anything without making cool-sounding, broad, sweeping statements
which are technically false?)

John H. Jenkins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT