Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The Implications of Unicode

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default The Implications of Unicode

    Be patient with me all you computer buffs! I see from my newly installed BW7 that it can export Greek and Hebrew fonts as unicode. As far as I can see, unicode is an attempt to represent all languages for those people who have Windows XP. Does this mean, if I export in unicode and then post the exported text in an e-mail, someone with Windows XP will see the Greek and Hebrew, even though they don't have Bibleworks fonts on their machine?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,090

    Default Theoretically, yes....

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Crawford
    Be patient with me all you computer buffs! I see from my newly installed BW7 that it can export Greek and Hebrew fonts as unicode. As far as I can see, unicode is an attempt to represent all languages for those people who have Windows XP. Does this mean, if I export in unicode and then post the exported text in an e-mail, someone with Windows XP will see the Greek and Hebrew, even though they don't have Bibleworks fonts on their machine?
    Yes and no. This is the reason why BW isn't (yet) 100% Unicode: not all computers can properly handle Unicode fonts. So if you email someone who is running an email client that specifically does support Unicode, it shouldn't be a problem. But not all email programs support it completely, so it still can be kind of hit and miss, but Unicode is the way of the future, so in the end, yes what you said is what the goal is supposed to be, but right now it may not always turn out that way.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  3. #3

    Default Unicode

    You are correct. Unicode provides standards for where each character is located in the overall font set, so you no longer need to worry about having a proprietary (TrueType) font. (Bwgreekl, Bwhebl, etc are all TrueType, not Unicode, fonts.) WinXP has built in Unicode support, but this only means that the characters will show up correctly in one of the built in Unicode fonts (Arial Unicode MS, Tahoma, one version of TimesNewRoman).
    I have tried to explain Unicode briefly HERE, but there are links on that page to much more information. I would especially encourage you to download/install fonts that really are more attractive than the WinXP standards.
    I like Cardo for the Greek (and it does also include most of the Hebrew you would ever need), but the SBLHebrew font is likely to become an academic standard for Hebrew.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  4. #4

    Default ahh, understanding

    thank you, Greg, for asking the question, and gentlemen, for your answers. i'm liking bw7 more and more, even though change is a challenge.

  5. #5

    Default

    Here is a free unicode keyboard that has Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and many others.

    http://imtranslator.net/keyboard.asp

  6. #6

    Default The Implications of Unicode

    Mark, does this mean that both the sender and receiver must have Cardo installed on their computer to receive the benefit of Cardo font; or will it suffice for the sender to have it?

  7. #7

    Default Unicode: Cardo

    You can choose which Unicode font you want to use on your computer as long as you have it on your computer. What happens if you use Cardo, for example, and someone else does not have that font and tries to read a file you created? On a WinXP system, it will default to one of the other Unicode fonts that is on the system. So, the characters will come out correctly, but it just won't be the same font style.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    13

    Default

    A little earlier in this thread Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    said: "Bwgreekl, Bwhebl, etc are all TrueType, not Unicode, fonts."

    This statement seems to imply that TrueType and Unicode are mutually exclusive terms, which is definitely not correct.

    Bwgreekl, Bwhebl, etc., are TrueType fonts that use an older encoding scheme instead of Unicode. But there are many TrueType fonts that do use Unicode encoding. TrueType is a font technology, while Unicode is an encoding scheme. Most Unicode polytonic Greek fonts that I am familiar with (e.g., Galatia SIL, Gentium, Cardo) are TrueType fonts.

  9. #9

    Default TrueType / Unicode

    My statement remains correct ("Bwgreekl, Bwhebl, etc are all TrueType, not Unicode, fonts."), but you indeed are even more correct in noting the difference between TrueType font technology and Unicode encoding schemes! Thanks.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •