TrueType Fonts and Attachment Points

[Charles Butler]

Hey there Bill and Val,

Regarding "attachment points".  I know that in typing
SW DOS, you have a key that goes to 8 points around a
given SW character.  If this were to go to 16 points
instead, for example, in a slightly larger circle, or
even at those shade points between 45 degrees (22.5
degrees) it might, I say might be able to get "good
enough to live by" SW vocabulary down.  Right now, in
addition to the 8 points, you have your arrow keys to
get specific hands or symbols overlapping exactly as
you want them visually to appear.  With so many
contact points on the face, and so many between hands
and various rotations, the interlocking 16 for each
character would make an interesting programming
expansion that could, conceivably, make True Fonts
adaptable.  If Chinese can do it, SW ought to be able
to do so.

Charles


--- Bill Reese <wreese01 at TAMPABAY.RR.COM> wrote:
> Val,
> I did a search for TrueType font generation, just to
> see what it
> entails.  On the way, I came across an article on
> Microsoft's site about
> International Windows and how they developed the
> ability to show
> different language fonts on the same machine using
> something they call
> Uniscribe.  The article is very complex and the
> subject matter is new to
> me, but it was interesting that it sounded very
> similar to some of the
> papers I read from the Lisbon conference.  Here's
> the link:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/developers/uniscribe/default.htm
>
> Also, in reading a bit further on the subject, I
> came across the need in
> some fonts to have what they call "attachment
> points" for such things
> like diacritical marks - which are usually either
> above or below the
> rest of the characters in the fonts.  That got me to
> wondering if there
> could be attachment points for SignWriting symbols.
> If each symbol was
> surrounded with 8 invisible attachment points, it
> could, theoretically,
> snap to one of the attachment points of an adjacent
> symbol.
>
> At the moment, the symbol placement within the
> character box is
> restricted by the number of pixels that the box
> represents on the
> screen.  This allows us to put symbols in a
> seemingly infinite number of
> arrangements.  If we had attachment points instead,
> while the number of
> arrangements wouldn't be infinite, it may be enough
> for the combinations
> we need.  Perhaps 16 attachment points would be
> needed, but you see the
> concept behind it is to provide a way to logically
> order the symbols in
> their spatial relationship.   You might even be able
> to infer a
> relationship based on attachment points - that if a
> symbol, say an
> arrow, is attached to a hand symbol, then it means
> that the hand is
> what's moving.
>
> Just a couple thoughts,
> Bill
>
>
> Valerie Sutton wrote:
>
> >
> > When I was working with Unicode specialist Michael
> Everson, years ago,
> > Michael told me that there would be no problem to
> place SignWriting
> > into Unicode, but there were three issues...The
> first is funding to
> > develop all the TrueType fonts for the huge
> symbolset...that is a big
> > task and unfortunately the first obstacle. The
> second is the politics
> > with the world standards...That has already been
> somewhat solved, since
> > Michael has already gotten written acceptance for
> a SignWriting Unicode
> > standard from the ISO (an international
> organization that sets world
> > standards)...hopefully, even though it has been
> several years now,
> > since we received that, the door will still be
> open when someone
> > finally works officially on Unicode. Once the
> first and second phases
> > are finished, there is a third phase...The
> programming of how the
> > TrueType fonts would work, to make it possible to
> type SignWriting with
> > them as efficiently as we do in SignWriter
> DOS...or maybe even better
> > that SignWriter DOS. I know that most people do
> not realize that we can
> > type directly in SignWriting, but we can if you
> know how to do it, and
> > getting Unicode to function on that level will
> need some programming. I
> > believe that Guylhem's paper is about an idea for
> Unicode
> > implementation...and there are other ideas
> too...People seem genuinely
> > interested in the programming aspects in step
> three...But it is
> > completing step one that scares me ---There are a
> lot of symbols to put
> > into TrueType!
> >