RE: [XP] Re: More comments on "Réflexions"

[Robert Keeble <RKeeble@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier RANDIER [mailto:orandier@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 3:19 PM
> To: typographie@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [XP] Re: More comments on "Réflexions"
> 
> (R. Keeble)
> >Interesting idea here about constructing glyphs that are not 
> present in the
> >font, but do you mean accented forms, or other characters? I'm asking
> >because I haven't seen many fonts with accent glyphs 
> (although Unicode will
> >change this), and more complex glyphs like cyrillic 
> characters would be
> >tough to construct with some other font.
> 
> I don't understand you there. In a standard Mac font, you 
> have thirteen
> isolated diacritics (acute, grave, circumflexe, dieresis, 

Sorry, I was typing with my Windoze goggles on. It seems in the ISO and
Windows world, the old strategy was to precompose all accented character
forms. Unicode allows these for compatibility, but the new approach is to
reuse character codes like accents where reasonable, and this makes more
efficient use of the "codepoint space"

Rob Keeble
Quark, Inc.