At 20:41 3/12/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
>There's no reason it has to be that way. Proposed glyphs are posted on
>the Unicode Web site months in advance of their "go live" date, even
>before the beta period, largely for this reason. I'm sure Unicode-aware
>type designers like John Hudson don't wait until a version of Unicode is
>formally released before they start designing glyphs.
If something has been approved, and any likely changes are only going to be
small details, yes, I'm willing to proceed with pre-publication
information. I have, however, begun to avoid projects involving scripts and
languages not included or approved for inclusion in Unicode; not because I
don't want to support these languages, but because of the problems
associated with such projects. There are enough scripts and languages
already encoded in Unicode that need improved font support, without taking
on those that have yet to be encoded. Lately, I've noticed that the old
question 'Can you make me a font for X script?' has been replaced by 'What
do I need to do to get X script included in Unicode?' or 'Who do I need to
talk to at Microsoft about getting Y language supported?'. I think this is
a positive development: font development should be built on a solid text
encoding foundation, not jerry-rigged.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
irretrievably.
Walter Benjamin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 13 2002 - 01:19:55 EST