On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 02:32:34PM +0700, Myanmar Triumph Int'l Ltd. wrote:
> I'm studying ways to provide Linux with unicode-compliant Myanmar character
> fonts.
> Mark Leisure use .bdf format to enable to enter unicode values easily for
> some Indic fonts.
> With reference to that, I did .bdf !!! Now, my MS Windows platform friends
> are doing Open Type. Then, I became to think that it would be nice that we
> use the same format regardless of the platform and there I'm stuck:(
>
> Btw, am I digging the right thing? Sould I just stick with .bdf at the
> moment????
Unix needs some bdf fonts if you want to use X terminal emulators
(e.g. xterm). Unix has much better support for bitmapped fonts than
Windows does, and there's also no working scaled font editors for
Unix (that I've ever heard of), so it's not surprising that Unix
people would do bdf. TrueType/OpenType fonts are also less supported
than BDF. OTOH, OpenType can produce _much_ better output,
especially when printed (if you can find a program that can print a
OpenType font under Linux.)
Whether or not you should switch to OpenType is up to you. OpenType
fonts take a lot more time to make than BDF, and most TrueType/OpenType
font editors are several hundred dollars and for Windows or Macintosh.
It also takes a lot more artistic ability to do a good scaled font
instead of a small bitmapped font.
-- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 20 2001 - 15:03:12 EDT