Re: OT: TECH: Dumb Unicode question
| From: | John Cowan <cowan@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, November 21, 2003, 20:34 |
|---|
JS Bangs scripsit:
> While I recognize the impracticality of the post-Astral (Transcendental?
> Heavenly? Nirvanal?) planes of ISO-10646,
The Galactic Planes. This derives from from the following FAQ and my answer:
Q: When will we need to add more codepoints to Unicode?
A: When we meet the Galactic Empire.
> What if a future world government decides to design a one-to-one mapping
> between citizens and glyphs? With 2^31 codepoints, they could do so for a
> very long time before they ran out.
1) Current font tech can't handle more than 65536 glyphs per font anyway.
2) There is nothing to say that fonts have to have one glyph per character.
It is quite common to have many (contextually assigned) glyphs per character,
and indeed to have single glyphs for multiple characters. If q-with-circumflex
is important to you, you may want to have a glyph for it even though it
is represented with two Unicode characters: this is done as a mandatory
ligature.
--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: jcowan@reutershealth.com
That thou wast born with. http://www.reutershealth.com
Reply