From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:04:50 EDT
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:11 PM, Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> At 08:44 -0700 2003-06-25, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > If it's true that either the UTC or WG2 has formally approved the
> > character, for a future version of Unicode or a future amendment to
> > 10646, then I don't see any reason why font makers can't PRODUCE a
> > font with a glyph for the proposed character at the proposed code
> > point.
> > They just can't DISTRIBUTE the font until the appropriate standard
> > is released.
> That's correct.
I think they can DISTRIBUTE it, in a font format that excludes a
Unicode encoding, or uses PUA positions (TrueType, OpenType, ...)
For use in a proposal specification, the "representative" glyph may also be
provided only as a collection of fixed scale bitmaps for various point
sizes, or better using a SVG (or similar like WMF, MacDraw, ...)
vector graphic format, with a disclaimer for the copyright, allowing a
royaltee-free reuse of this glyph (including for embedding) by Unicode and
ISO10646 in their published charts. Then it can still be easily embedded in
a PDF file...
Font designers may also propose this character in a TTF font containing only
that glyph at the proposed codepoint, with a font name that explicitly says
that this font is a "beta" version and contains the proposed character name,
and the name of the author. This long font name will greatly limit the interchange
of the font outside of the proposal documents where it would be embedded.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:58:24 EDT