Re: Greek characters in IPA usage

From: Julian Bradfield (jcb+unicode@inf.ed.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 17 2009 - 14:37:04 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Confusion about weak and strong disunification"

    On 2009-08-17, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 2009/8/17 John H. Jenkins <jenkins@apple.com>:
    >> 在 Aug 15, 2009 8:24 AM 時, Julian Bradfield 寫到:
    >>> However, there is no way the core font system can ever handle
    >>> variation selectors - it just doesn't have the mechanism. It would
    [...]
    >> The current version of the OpenType spec provides for support of variation
    >> selectors at the font level.
    >
    > The statement was about the X11 core font system. I'm not sure I buy
    > that it's worth Unicode worrying about; it has no support for complex
    > script shaping, for one.

    That's another example of the Unicode zealot's dismissal of a large
    user community with a huge existing base. The majority of the world
    doesn't need complex script shaping. Indeed, it's open to question
    whether script shaping is *plain text* at all (which is surely why
    Unicode dislikes the coding of shaped forms, though it has often been
    coerced into doing it). Dismissing a widely used system because it
    can't do something that Unicode explicitly doesn't wish to encode is
    strange, to say the least.

    I personally stick to the core font system because I find bitmapped
    fonts far clearer and easier to read than ****type fonts in the sizes
    I use - and BDF is a hell of a lot easier to edit than ****type when you need
    another character, be it an obscure hanzi or a phonetic symbol. I
    gather that many CJK users, who are a non-trivial community, find the
    same, hence the rather large effort put into the wenquanyi bitmap fonts.

    Incidentally, Wikipedia currently says (under "OpenType") that
    Opentype has no font-internal support for complex script shaping. If
    that's not the case, perhaps you could correct it?
    If it is the case, then what's so different from doing client-side
    script-shaping with bitmapped fonts, which you could also do?
    (That is a question - I know almost nothing about complex layout, nor
    about how OpenType fits with X, since I don't use a language requiring
    complex shaping.)

    -- 
    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 14:38:59 CDT