Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 16:02 -0400 2005-08-14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nowdays anyone in the world could reproduce much of the content
> >>of WWS with an off-the-shelf OS.
> >>
> > > They would still have to create fonts for around a third of the
> >writing systems.
> >
> >Which ones still aren't in Unicode?
>
> You can see what is in Unicode and what is tentatively scheduled by
> looking at the Roadmaps.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp/
>
> and
>
> http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/smp/
>
> >What does the Unicode-user do if they buy e.g. my fonts for scripts that
> >haven't yet been incorporated?
>
> Those fonts, like any other 8-bit fonts, are fine for setting text
> and printing it. They will still work, most likely, though as time
> goes on support for old fonts like that may wane. They aren't good
> for data representation or interchange, however.

They're not intended for data representation or interchange. They're
intended for printing.

If Marco's book is a guide, then the Armenian that comes with Windows
looks nothing like Armenian; it's assimilated to roman minuscules. (Yet
the Georgian is ok.) That's not acceptable for typesetting Armenian!

> One thing that can be done is to have old fonts reencoded so that
> they work properly with Unicode characters.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...