Re: "Uniscribe is just an implementation of these specifications, and I hope
sincerely Microsoft will not hide some "features" into USP10.DLL in order to
kill any concurrence."
The process of adding new feature support to Uniscribe is not unlike adding
newer "features / capabilities" to other components. Simplistically put:
(i). We study a complex script X and hear expert views on that script.
(ii). If (i) shows that X has shaping needs such that none of the existing
features would be of help, proposals are made for new features.
(iii). Then a number of things are done parallely: code is added to
Uniscribe for those newer features; VOLT code is updated; existing fonts are
updated or new are developed to test these etc.
(iv). We add the newer features to the spec. Publish the updated spec.
For various reasons, the time between (iii) and (iv) can vary [there are
times when the number of iterations between between (ii) and (iii) are more
than those estimated at the start of the cycle]. This might create a
situation where Uniscribe is updated, but the updated spec is not yet
public. However, we do ensure that the spec for that particular script lists
all features that usp10.dll uses.
From: Antoine Leca [mailto:Antoine.Leca@renault.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:20 AM
To: Unicode List
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Implementing Complex Unicode Scripts
Charlie Jolly wrote:
> Do fonts have to tie themselves to a script engine.
Yes. Font technologies does not allow things like Nagari or Sinhala
to operate by themselves, they need some assistance from the underlying
This is the current state of art, one may hope it will change in the future.
> Will an Opentype font for lets say Hindi such as MS Mangal work on an
> Apple OS or Linux?
It may, provided you implement a Indic OpenType compliant process.
It is not as complex as it may sound.
> Or is this font tied to Uniscribe?
No it is not. The font is tied to the (Microsoft's) Indic OpenType
which is a different beast. Uniscribe is just an implementation of these
specifications, and I hope sincerely Microsoft will not hide some
"features" into USP10.DLL in order to kill any concurrence.
(OTOH, unlike I think Peter I do not believe that any implementation
that is not compliant with the way USP10.DLL behaves, has any future...)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT