From: John H. Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2007 - 23:54:35 CDT
Well, and remember it wasn't just the Koreans. Microsoft, too, needed
precomposed hangul for various technical reasons. These technical
reasons don't apply to hieroglyphics, and, as I understand it,
Microsoft's OpenType support has advanced to the point that there
should be no real substantial reason for Egyptian publishers to
require precomposed glyphs in order to facilitate rendering.
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
> Do Ancient Egyptian publishers have the same level of clout as Korea?
> I won't hold my breath waiting for UTC to give in on that one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On Behalf Of William J Poser
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:31 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Unicode 5.1 Character Count Statistics Projection
> The one thing that Ken hasn't taken into account is the
> mess that will result if the ancient Egyptian publishers
> behave like the Koreans and insist on separate codepoints
> for all of the combinations into blocks in order to
> facilitate rendering. That could really eat up codepoints.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 05 2007 - 23:56:42 CDT