[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Q: Unicode available/planned for (La)TeX(3)?
At 19:22 1999-02-26 +0000, Chris Rowley wrote:
>Do I detect some recidivism here!?
>I thought you had reassured me that all these wonderful OSs
>platform-independent portable font resources nowadays?
>Thus a "unicode-encoded font" may be "in Windows"
now but I hope that
>we do not have to use them, whatever they may be and however easy
>To whom getting on with what are a fixed encoding and OS-embedded
>resources a boon?
>In fact, I have yet to see a font encoding that is anything other
>16-bit numbers" but maybe "unicode" ones exist
>And I have not even started on phrases like "almost
Not sure I follow :-) The idea is that presently we have a plethora
code pages (*), encoding vectors etc. primarily because with only
256 character codes we can't deal with anything but some small
subset of characters at a time.
According to Unicode Consortium, characters are not glyphs and
glyphs are not characters, and Unicode 16 bit numbers are about
characters. So they should be used only on the "input" side,
not for naming glyphs.
But aside from Unicode being used for character coding, it is also
de facto being used for glyph encoding. Which is counter to
religion of the Unicode consortium, but a great thing when nothing
better is available. No longer any need to mess with code
and encoding vectors. So 0x015E is Scedilla in all of the
that we make that have Scedilla, and 0x0162 is Tcommaaccent.
No need to explain anything, no need to jump through hoops.
Windows NT supports this nicely, as may the next Mac OS.
Even ATM in Windows NT does the right thing.
(*) "So would you say I have a plethora of