From: Andrew Cunningham (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2010 - 00:43:59 CDT
On 15 October 2010 13:04, Vinod Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Unicode compliance does not mean that complex text support must be on Open
> Font format or its Feature tag based shaping technique. There is no doubt
> that the mobile phone community has accepted Unicode as the standard for
> text representation, and for what the text should look like when
> displayed. How the text should transform to the shapes is not under
> the purview of Unicode. If people find simpler or elegant ways of
> transforming Unicode text to shapes, these are not pseudo-Unicode solutions.
Actually you misinterpreted what i said.
pseudo unicode is a term used to describe non-Unicode legacy glyph
based encodings that are superimposed over Unicode blocks. to the
average application it looks like Unicode but isn't Unicode.
For the Myanmar script examples of pseudo-Unicode would include the
zawgyi and ayar fonts.
For languages like Burmese pseudo-Unicode content is much more common
than Unicode content. And all mobile solutions I've seen for Burmese
have been non-Unicode.
> For example, India had a font standard called INSFOC for Devanagari. A
> shaping engine that will convert Devanagari text in Unicode to INSFOC glyph
> code sequence would be completely Unicode compliant with respect to
> rendering of Devanagari. Some of my contacts have already extended this
> approach for Gujarati and plan to bring all the nine Indian scripts too
> under the same Unicode text to font glyph code standard.
That is what i would term transcoding, and not what i mean by pseudo-Unicode.
-- Andrew Cunningham Senior Project Manager, Research and Development Vicnet State Library of Victoria Australia email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 15 2010 - 00:50:22 CDT