In message <200005181726.JAA15939@unicode.org>
Marco Cimarosti <email@example.com> wrote:
> Mark Leisher wrote:
> > [...]
> > Everyone seems to forget that these *glyphs* in this font were
> > assigned *glyph codes* of U+03f4 and U+03f5, not character
> > codes. It really doesn't matter where the glyphs occur in
> > the font, as long as the character-glyph mapping works, no?
> Holy words. Amen.
> As far as numbers 0 to 65535 remain copyleft, a Unicode code point is the
> most natural glyph code, and no one has rights or reasons to forbid this
Excuse my ignorance, but what system are we talking about that has "glyph
codes" similar to Unicode, but not identical, and at what point are these
codes visible to the user/programmer? I'm not familiar with the technology
involved. If these codes are visible externally, and could be mistaken
for Unicode code points, it strikes me as the top of a slippery slope.
On our systems, the glyph ordering within fonts bears very little relation
to any encoding - indeed Unicode ordering would be hugely inefficient due
to the huge gaps in the table.
-- Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology plc Tel: +44 (0) 1223 518566 645 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 518526 Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.acorn.co.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT