Subject: Re: UCS-2 vs. UCS-4
From: Martin Sevior (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 23 2001 - 19:23:50 CDT
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> > Another thing to keep in mind is whether some iconvs might not
> > have support for UCS-2 or UTF-32. But we can always roll our own.
> I just came to think of some other possible obstacles: output.
> Win32 can only handle up to 16-bit Unicode as output (on the API level), I
> don't know if it handles tagged/shifted output >= 2^16. What about the other
> supported platforms (X, Photon, BeOS, ...)?
> Do TrueType allow chars >= 2^16? Type1?
> Stuff like that. Perhaps it wasn't a too bright idea I got after all. :-)
Actually this will be really easy for Unix. Post 1.0 we should port to GTK
2.0. GTK 2.0 handles all text in UTF-8. So all we need is a UCS-4 to UTF-8
translator. Should be no problem :-)
GTK 2.0 has lots of other good features that should enable us to dispense
with the massive overhead of remapGlyph(), at least for Unix. That should
speed us up enormously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Jun 23 2001 - 19:24:19 CDT