The problem is the conversion of the existing formatted text. We have already gone through 2 conversions: the first was from Quark to FrameMaker, which was to give us better overall book generation; the second was from FrameMaker on the Mac to Framemaker on Windows.
Both of these conversions were *extremely* painful, and took many person-months to do -- far more than we anticipated. Ideally, FrameMaker would move to supporting Unicode, and we wouldn't have to convert again, but I don't know what Adobe's plans are (anyone have an idea?).
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Kenneth Whistler <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> KW> Not highly recommended! If we could have used a text layout
> KW> tool that understood Unicode fonts, we would have.
> Could I suggest that you have a look into the ``Omega'' variant of
> TeX? Omega supports complex user-customisable mappings between the
> input encoding (which can be anything from UTF-16 through your
> favourite legacy encoding to an ASCII-only Arabic transliteration),
> the Omega internal encoding (a glyph encoding based on Unicode) and
> the output encoding (anything your fonts use). The mapping mechanisms
> have been designed to be sufficiently powerful to handle scripts such
> as Arabic. Don't ask about Bidi, Omega supports sixteen writing
> Out of the box, Omega currently supports Latin, Greek, Cyrillic,
> Arabic, Hebrew, Tifinagh and maths. However, it has been designed to
> be extremely extensible, and you should get enthusiastic support and
> help from the authors.
> I refer you to
> or to your favourite TeX distribution.
> Juliusz Chroboczek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:00 EDT