4 ms·
No, the article doesn't conflate anything, the situation isn't comparable to ISO-8859-* at all. Zawgyi is merely a font that renders certain glyphs differently
by xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
No, the article doesn't conflate anything, the situation isn't comparable to ISO-8859-* at all. Zawgyi is merely a font that renders certain glyphs differently than specified by Unicode.
It isn't a real encoding, it's a nasty hack and that's what makes the transition difficult.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoOnce more: the encoding is what's used to store the data, the font is what's used to render it. If your data is not encoded correctly, Zawgyi won't show it either. Of course, the fact that Zawgyi isn't properly standardized doesn't help. Also, most of the technical content of the article is gibberish. Exhibit A: "It made use of the visual typing and encoding method as one would write it on paper, rather than using logical linguistics and computer encoding conventions of Unicode."
- msla 7y agoThe reporting here is so bad I'm honestly confused about whether anything at all is changing. I wonder why this news outlet tried to report this specific piece of news at all, instead of leaving it to the specialist press.
- msla 7y agoUnicode doesn't define rendering: https://unicode.org/standard/principles.html https://unicode.org/standard/principles.html > The Unicode Standard does not define glyph images. The standard defines how characters are interpreted, not how glyphs are rendered. The software or hardware-rendering engine of a computer is responsible for the appearance of the characters on the screen. The Unicode Standard does not specify the size, shape, nor style of on-screen characters