UPD Mail Archive: UPD> ISO 9541

UPD Mail Archive: UPD> ISO 9541

UPD> ISO 9541

From: Norbert Schade (nschade@xionics.com)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 11:24:54 EST

  • Next message: T. Motoyama +1-408-954-5445: "UPD> ISO 9541"

    I had a chance to have a short look at it.
    This spec consists of three parts: general architecture, ways to code it
    (Interchange format) and Glyph shape representation.
    I don't think we care about part 3 too much.
    Part 2 tells about ASN and SGML coding and minimum font resources and should
    be easy to understand.
    Part 1 is the main description of the architecture and the structures and
    parameters. This would be the main reference.

    I have some comments and questions:
    1. I want to find out how much this spec is a living spec. Where is it used?
    I would not called it exactly Windows conform, although that shouldn't be
    our only view.
    Perhaps some people from operating systems and/or font development have some
    more info.
    Motoyama-san, what do you know about that? Are you working with it
    Can somebody provide a DTD and an XML file based on that DTD?
    2. the spec is from the early nineties. A bigger part of the architecture is
    handling font classification, which nowadays is realized by Panose in many
    environments. I favor Panose.
    3. Unicode is not mentioned in the sections I have seen.
    4. I do not find anything about character sets in the spec, neither of
    operating systems nor of devices.
    5. The spec seems to be stronger concerning alignments of international
    6. Parameters looks somehow familiar, although I haven't studied in detail

    I have to study more, but my conclusion up to now is:
    We will not fulfill the spec 100%, as today's requirements are not all
    covered. So we will not be compatible.
    The question is whether we want to lean towards it. What advantages would
    that have? What extra effort (at least reading and thinking about it and
    then comparing in detail, what we can take over)?
    We may want to decide that in the very near future. But we need more info
    and a broader base for the decision.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 11:31:50 EST