In fact both MS Mincho and MS Gothic contain far more characters (and
glyphs) than appear in JIS X 0208 and a few more than JIS X 0212, so
these already go far beyond "code page based" (code page 932 covers
essentially JIS X 0208).
In fact much Microsoft software no longer officially supports fonts that
do not include a Unicode cmap. This has been the case for several years.
So it is actually slower to use these fonts in a non-Unicode way, since
the OS has to convert your non-Unicode data to Unicode in order to
process it. As a rule of thumb, Unicode text processing on NT/2000/XP is
always as fast or faster than non-Unicode processing.
Chris Pratley
Grpoup Program Manager
Microsoft Word
Sent with OfficeXP final release
-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Sargent [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: August 1, 2001 9:13 AM
To: Richard, Francois M; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Unicode/font questions.
Actually fonts on Windows are normally Unicode based (including MS
Mincho and MS Gothic) and most have in addition some codepage access. So
there is neither a perf hit nor a codepage problem in using such fonts
on NT, Win2000 and WinXP. These considerations are orthogonal to
OpenType.
Murray
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard, Francois M
Sent: Wed 2001/08/01 05:40
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Unicode/font questions.
Since Win2000 and NT are native Unicode, is it true to say that
any use of a
non-Unicode font (in fact most of the fonts on Windows. And in
particular
Asian font like MS Mincho, MS Gothic) in a Unicode application
will generate
a conversion WideCharToMultibyte (to convert the Unicode text to
the
specific font codepage)?
Is this a big performance hit?
Can this create mapping issues (e.g. Unicode <-> Chinese
character
encoding)?
Are we sure that if a font is installed on a machine, then the
appropriate
codepage is going to be available too (for the conversion)?
What about "extending" current non-Unicode font to support
Unicode? Like a
"MS Mincho Unicode"... It would still be specialized/dedicated
to Asian
glyphs, but by using Unicode character encoding, it would not
require the
WideCharToMultibyte conversion...
Is Open TrueType related to this?
Fran�ois
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 14:14:48 EDT