🚀 go-pugleaf

ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin) writes:

>In article <26760@life.ai.mit.edu> bkph@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn) writes:
>>
>>THE FONT ENCODING MESS:
>>=======================

>Agree with most of the things said, but ...

>>Finally:  Let's hope that UNICODE with its 16-bit characters will help
>>resolve some of these problems.  Although, UNICODE is dead in the
>>water if it does not provide access to ligatures.  For there can be
>>no fine typesetting without ligatures.
>>
>>FLAME OFF

>... I don't know about this. It seems ironical, but perhaps not.
>Should there be a :-) attached? or is it just rabid flaming?

>As far as I understand, Unicode and other character codes are intended
>for information interchange, not for driving typesetting equipment.

What is typesetting if not information exchange? If there was no ASCII-at-
least-half-a-standard there would be no typesetting. I could not take my
documents and carry them to the imagesetter's studio and run it through
his Scantext-machine. No way.
Other tries at standardization DEPEND on ASCII for example SGML. Thus they
- and every other application that transgresses platforms, such as type-
setting - will in the future also depend on Unicode, should it become standard.

BTW, one thing I have always wondered: Why stop at 16 bit encoding and leave
out half the Asian World? At least that would cut down on the HELP, THAI FONT
NEEDED-posts :-)


     Ulrich Mayring
     volksdesign.

       - Also wir waren mit grau eigentlich sehr zufrieden -