From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 28 2005 - 16:44:58 CST
At 14:15 -0800 2005-03-28, John Hudson wrote:
>I was at the Typotechnica presentation from Quark, and while it is
>nice to finally see them moving on Unicode and OpenType the level of
>support was less impressive than many had hoped. The consensus of
>people I spoke to (mainly type designers and font developers) was
>that Quark's Unicode and OpenType support is a straight clone of the
>level of support in InDesign CS, right down to the list of OpenType
>Layout features supported and the new glyph pallette. It was
>disappointing to not see a single new idea that wasn't directly
>based on what Adobe have already done.
I disagree. I typeset a book in Irish, English, and Chinese in
InDesign. That program is SLOW compared to Quark. I suppose it's
grand for magazine production with lots of colour illustrations and
graphics, but Quark is superior for book production. I say this as
someone who typesets books on a regular basis.
>On the Unicode front, you can expect multibyte character encoding
>support, but not complex script or bidi layout.
In the short term, that is a lot better than just supporting Mac
WorldScript in Quark Passport.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 28 2005 - 16:48:07 CST