Re: Latin ligatures and Unicode

From: Paul Keinanen (
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 16:45:14 EST

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:42:09 -0800 (PST), John Jenkins
<> wrote:

>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

Any (gu)estimates how much memory such smart fonts (with rendering
engines) would require to fully support all non-CJK environments ?

I am thinking of embedded systems with usually limited RAM capacity,
although (EP)ROM capacity might be one or two megabytes.

Based on the sizes of some True Type font files, adding CJK support
would increase the (EP)ROM requirement with 5-10 MB ?


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