On 11/16/2013 08:17 PM, Paul wrote: >> Unicode allows for 1,114,112 different glyphs, excluding variants. >> with variants, you are looking at roughly 1,750,000 glyphs. > And so... how does this relate to 2000 pages?
The largest currently available Pan-Unicode font contains roughly 100,000 glyphs. (There are several "speciality" font packages that contain more glyphs, but they are not Pan-Unicode fonts.) Divide the number of glyphs in the font by the number of glyphs displayed in the screen. >> Taking, thorn, for example, with the current setup, one knows to look in the >> Runic range. > You might, but that doesn't mean everybody does. Only if one has paid absolutely no attention to how glyphs in the font are organized. Even a thirty second scan shows that it is ordered by writing system. >> when the sub-range is at the whim of a programmer, it could be >> literally anywhere. > Sure, but the assumption is that it is easier to find a glyph by usage than > by name The issue you fail to recognize is that the same glyph can be used in any number of different fields, to represent very different concepts and meanings. >> The claim is that the current filters are inadequate. Thus, the need >> to dummy it down, so that it is less efficient, more time consuming, >> and awkward to use. > Why on earth would I want to make it *more* complex if it is too > difficult as it is? I can see you clearly don't understand the suggestion. Take a look at the problems created by the various types of indexing methods used for Chinese dictionaries, and why each of those indexing solutions is touted as being the best, and thus only system that should be used. >> But because less glyphs are displayed, Joe Sixpack thinks it is easier to >> use. > Exactly. So useful for Joe Sixpack, if not for you. Less glyphs displayed means more pages have to be viewed to find the appropriate glyph. Which means that in the long run, it will be even more awkward for Joe Sixpack. > What I'm proposing is another dropdown, let's call it "filters", that would allow you to display only the glyphs that belong in that filter. Do that as a user-installable extension. > If you know, however, that you need the ohm symbol, but don't know where to find it, you can change the filter dropdown to "Electrical Symbols", and the subsection dropdown will go blank, and the list of characters will only show those characters that are defined in the xml file as belonging to electrical symbols, making ohm easier to find. What happens when the ohm symbol is not in the set of "Electrical Symbols"? Joe Sixpack is even more lost than under the current setup. > And if your font is webdings or whatever, and the character for ohm doesn't look like an ohm, then you will get a pumpkin, or whatever, Then you are back with the mess that fonts were, before most software incorporated, and could utilize Unicode. > Now does that really sound like it would be *more* complex? >Would it make the number of pages go from 2000 to 25000? Would it leave you at the whim of the programmer? > I don't think so. What happens when the programmer omits glyphs because s/he thinks that they are so rare/obscure that they will not be useḍ? IIRC, there are around 10,000 glyphs waiting to be voted on, each of which is used only in one or two very specific circumstances, but without which, it will be like the Japanese newspapers that consistently misspelled the name of their premier, because their font lacked the appropriate glyphs. jonadthon * English - detected * English * English <javascript:void(0);> -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
