🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3178@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes:
>Pretty wild idea, huh ?

Sure is...

>What if...
>
>... there was a common standard. Not some god-awful ANSI thing
>that takes years to develop, nobody likes, and then Dennis says
>it wont work anyway, but something simple.

Well, just because the output is bit-mapped doesn't mean that a bitmap is
the best representation.  A bitmap is a great data format for representing
snow (pseudo-random bits), but for something as orderly as a font it would
be more efficient to use another representation.

Try these on for size:

    1.  How about a format that describes the shape (outline) of the
        character.  Similarities here to Adobe's font technology, with
        echos of the Apple II shape table.

    2.  How about a series of numbers, one or more pairs per X position,
        which describe the Y positions at which the body of the character
        begins/ends.  This will be smaller than a bitmap while still
        providing exactly the same information; and generating a bitmap
        from this format is trivial.

I happen to like (1) if you intend to scale the font, (2) otherwise.
#2 could easily be done in all-ASCII with appropriate punctuation.
#1 could also be ASCII, I suppose, but I've never thought about it.

Any other ideas, folks?
--
Chip Salzenberg                 "chip@ateng.UU.NET" or "codas!ateng!chip"
A T Engineering                 My employer's opinions are a trade secret.
       "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."