Re: TECH: Fonts (was Re: Various)

> > http://charts.unicode.org/
> Well, they look good, perhaps the glyphs are a bit
> small to use as input, but it's probably doable. Of
> course, you aren't allowed to download the charts...
They say: "Not only will your copies fail to reflect
any corrections or additions which are made here,
but making copies also fails to respect the legal
rights of our font vendors."

And like you say, they are really too small to use:
http://charts.unicode.org/Unicode.charts/Small.Glyphs/0B/U0B8F.gif

But I have some very dumb basic questions:
How many of these alphabets, syllabaries, etc,
would work as a series of simply-abutted images?
HTML supports right-to-left text, at least,
assuming conversion of gifs to fonts.
I would even accept monospacing, that's how
artistically barbaric I am about this.

I remember writing programs 20 years ago to scan
high-quality-art fonts at 10000 by 10000 pixels,
edge-coding them for compression, then handing that
off to the art designers who turned them into
photo-composition fonts for magazines etc. That is
*not* the appropriate road for unicode to take.

If unicode is going to say "let them eat cake",
we should burn down all their palaces, etc etc.
Writing schemes were invented by entire cultures,
not a few font vendors. Unicode should be a solution,
not just another big problem. </hyperventilation>