>le 2001/10/30 14:55, tedd à tedd@... a écrit :
>
>>  In there you can find whatever characters you guys are talking about
>>  and give it a code point. However, if it's not there, then it's
>>  extinct.
>
>true and false. one of the wonders of opentype is that as it accepts
>hinting; you note that when two specific chars are together you substitute
>the ligature [or propose it - we wouldn't want an over enthousiastic
>opentype word processor to propose, for example 'p&er' for 'peter' when
>writing in french - or, maybe we would :-) ].
>
>you thus prepare a 'pool' of ligatures, and substitute on the fly.
>
>this is also used for languages like arabic where the form of the letters
>change according to context. [otherwise, of course, you'd have to provide a
>specific code for each double-letter combination in these languages, and
>even unicode would through in the towel at that number of possibilities].
>

My point is simply that Unicode is defining the world definition of
characters (code points, ligatures or whatever one wants to call
them) and if your horse is not in that race, then it ain't going to
be around for the next race.

The Unicode standard is become the standard of choice because there
are no other contenders. This organization (which I don't object to)
is setting the world standard of what is going to be considered and
what is not for future generations to come through its current
control of the Internet -- the first real attempt of global
communications between peoples (and not governments).

My post is simply an advanced notice that all languages (more to the
point -> characters) are being evaluated with regard to what's needed
and what's not.

Not a subject of argument, but more of a news bulletin.

tedd




--
http://sperling.com