From: Murray Sargent (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2007 - 00:54:00 CDT
Admittedly Microsoft hasn't needed precomposed Hangul characters for many years now (almost as long as Apple :-). The complex-script approach to jamos also has the advantage of handling old Korean as well as modern, and with smaller fonts, something handy for cell phones. I totally agree that there's no way at this point in time that the UTC would support composed characters for an ancient script that could readily be represented by combinations of simpler entities.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of John H. Jenkins
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:55 PM
To: Unicode MailingList
Subject: Re: Unicode 5.1 Character Count Statistics Projection
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 : Wed Jun 06 2007 - 00:56:11 CDT