From Newsgroup: comp.lang.postscript

Hi All,

I'm about to publish my UTF-8 code. Before I do I'm asking for feedback
and opinions for what should be the last time.

What's different about what I'm finally intending to publish:

1. I'm using a dictionary for the UNICODE encoding map, instead of
sparse array. This isn't because it's faster -- 3ns slower seems quite acceptable -- and a dictionary is bigger -- over double the size for
GNU's UnifontMedium. I'm doing this because it's two less files to
publish -- I don't need to publish sparseget and I don't need to publish
an AWK script to convert Fontforge .g2n files into a sparse array.

2. I've replaced utf8show with utf8decode (which generates an array of
UNICODE values) and unicodeshow.

3. I'm not storing the map in the font, but passing it as a parameter to unicodeshow because I think it's simpler. Storing it in the font means defining a new font (definefont).

These are the alternative programs for printing a UTF-8 string.

This is what I think I'll publish:

%!PS
%%IncludeResource: procset unicodeshow
%%IncludeResource: procset utf8decode
/Helvetica 20 selectfont
100 300 moveto
(Welcome to \342\200\234UTF-8\342\200\235 \342\230\272) utf8decode
ReverseAdobeGlyphList exch unicodeshow
showpage

This is what I was previously intending, using a dictionary:

%!PS
%%IncludeResource: procset unicodefont
%%IncludeResource: procset unicodeshow
%%IncludeResource: procset utf8decode
/Helvetica findfont 20 scalefont ReverseAdobeGlyphList unicodefont
/MyFont exch definefont setfont
100 300 moveto
(Welcome to \342\200\234UTF-8\342\200\235 \342\230\272) utf8decode
unicodeshow
showpage

There's one extra line if using a sparse array instead of a dictionary:

%%IncludeResource: procset sparseget

I think the first is better but am open to opposing opinions.

Thanks,

David
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.postscript

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 9:11:52 PM UTC-6, David Newall wrote:

Hi All,

I'm about to publish my UTF-8 code. Before I do I'm asking for feedback
and opinions for what should be the last time.

That looks really good to me. I'm a little sad that definefont is out,
but it really doesn't appear to offer very much. It seems like PostScript *almost* has the pieces available to put this together seamlessly.
But the conversion probably can't use a filtered file because of the need
to convert from a string to an array. And packing the glyph selection
into a composite font would be a ton of work if it's even possible.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.postscript

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 14:11:37 +1100
David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com> wrote:
[...]

3. I'm not storing the map in the font, but passing it as a parameter
to unicodeshow because I think it's simpler. Storing it in the font
means defining a new font (definefont).

I think the map problem --how to get a good map, since the AdobeGlyphMap
is insufficient-- is the key. The interface and/or implementation IMO
is not so important (I posted an alternative implementation in another message--but it's still limited to the meager 4K+ glyphs in the Adobe
list plus whatever extra /uniXXXX the font has...).

C.
--

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2