From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 16:51:30 EST
----- Message d'origine -----
De: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
> Patric Andries continued:
Okay, okay I'll keep quite (for a while…)
> > > On Dec 2, 2003, at 7:35 PM, Patrick Andries wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, some fonts would be better than none (and they have to be made
> > > > so that
> > > > the Unicode standard be printed).
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Unicode standard doesn't require Unicode to be printed. A lot of
> > > the fonts used to print the book are Windows symbols fonts, with the
> > > code chart-generating code automatically remapping them as needed.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply this, but I believe this indexing is a minor
effort
> > when compared to the font drawing aspect and those fonts,
>
> True, but...
>
> A. Many of these fonts are encumbered with highly restricted licenses
> and IP agreements enabling use *only* for publication of the standards
> (Unicode *and* 10646).
>
> B. The management of the fonts for the publication of the standards is
> already a resource-bound task that is somewhat of a QA nightmare and
> which contributes significantly to the time it takes to produce each
> new version of the standard. There are no extra cycles here to devote
> to also trying to repackage and market these fonts for general use,
> *even if* they weren't encumbered by license agreements.
I never meant or said this to be a Unicode consortium project, what I
intended to say is that these basic fonts could not be very expensive for
*someone* to provide : original font designers that supplied it to the
Unicode consortium or — for instance — the OS manufacturers licensing them
from those font designers as more helpful last resort fonts.
P. A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 18:03:21 EST