"Michael Chean" Michael_Chean@email.msn.com wrote:
Hi: Is this release public? I went to the download and it indicates that 2.7 is the current release.
Hi, I try to keep an updated alpha image on the ftp site. You can find it at: ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu//Smalltalk/Squeak/2.7/files/Squeak2.8a-beo.tar.gz
Are you on a mac? If so you'll need to change the creator type.
cheers
bruce
As we find ourselves adding new fonts to Squeak (in part for aesthetic reasons, in part for licensing purposes), we are running into issues related to the fact that each font encodes "special glyphs" differently, and some fonts don't have these special glyphs at all. It would be a good idea if we could adopt a standard encoding for Squeak Fonts, so to aid those converting new fonts for Squeak.
Squeak typically wants to have "straight line" single and double quotes, the underbar replaced with the assignment glyph, the caret replaced with the return glyph and so forth. In TimesRoman, the original characters were "tucked into" an empty space in the font glyphs array.
As an aside, I'd really prefer if Squeak displayed "SOMETHING" to indicate that a non-printing character was struck. Many times I have accidentally typed a control character or the like, which didn't display but was present in a string or symbol. If outside of a literal, you simply get a confusing syntax error, but it does damning things elsewhere. This could be accomplished simply by adding a "marker" character, leaving no empty spaces in the glyphs Form.
At any rate, it would be nice if we could settle on precisely what glyphs Squeak expects to have, and where, where we will or should "tuck away" the substituted glyphs for the Squeak-Unique symbols, and determine whether its a good idea to have "invisible" typable characters, or to fix it with a glyph (or some other means to display the same). Once we settled on a "standard" encoding, presumably derived from a standard "standard" encoding of some sort, we can start building tools to facilitate the efforts of those importing Squeak fonts.
At 9:36 Uhr -0500 01.02.2000, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
... At any rate, it would be nice if we could settle on precisely what glyphs Squeak expects to have, and where, where we will or should "tuck away" the substituted glyphs for the Squeak-Unique symbols, and determine whether its a good idea to have "invisible" typable characters, or to fix it with a glyph (or some other means to display the same). Once we settled on a "standard" encoding, presumably derived from a standard "standard" encoding of some sort, we can start building tools to facilitate the efforts of those importing Squeak fonts.
Currently the standard "standard" encoding is the Mac OS encoding. I vote for either staying with that or adopting ISO Latin-1 (the standard encoding for the WWW). In any case I don´t want to lose the umlaut characters.
Georg ---- Dipl.Ing. Georg Gollmann TU-Wien, Zentraler Informatikdienst Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10 phon:(+43-1) 58801 - 42022 A-1040 Wien fax: (+43-1) 58801 - 42099 mail:gollmann@zid.tuwien.ac.at http://macos.tuwien.ac.at/Gollmann.html
At 9:36 -0500 2/1/2000, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
As we find ourselves adding new fonts to Squeak (in part for aesthetic reasons, in part for licensing purposes), we are running into issues related to the fact that each font encodes "special glyphs" differently, and some fonts don't have these special glyphs at all. It would be a good idea if we could adopt a standard encoding for Squeak Fonts, so to aid those converting new fonts for Squeak.
Yes!
Squeak typically wants to have "straight line" single and double quotes, the underbar replaced with the assignment glyph, the caret replaced with the return glyph and so forth. In TimesRoman, the original characters were "tucked into" an empty space in the font glyphs array.
I think it would be nice to balance Squeak's needs against what fonts come with and are usually expected to contain.
Possibly we could mark the specially encoded fonts ('Sq' preface???) and use then for code-related things. Applications are probably better done with stock fonts; a row of left arrows in a web page will look very odd when a row of underscores is expected.
As an aside, I'd really prefer if Squeak displayed "SOMETHING" to indicate that a non-printing character was struck. Many times I have accidentally typed a control character or the like, which didn't display but was present in a string or symbol. If outside of a literal, you simply get a confusing syntax error, but it does damning things elsewhere. This could be accomplished simply by adding a "marker" character, leaving no empty spaces in the glyphs Form.
There is a font someplace (and I have a copy someplace) which shows the hex encoding for the character as its glyph: two small hex numbers, the first raised to the top left of the glyph and the other at the right bottom. It might be better to have at least one font encoded both ways since only us programmers tend to care what the code for XON is.
...
Dave _______________________________ David N. Smith IBM T J Watson Research Center Hawthorne, NY _______________________________ Any opinions or recommendations herein are those of the author and not of his employer.
I also would like an alternative set of character encodings so that I could display underscores and caret characters for non-code environments. This would be useful for say, displaying filenames in directories.
--Joe Blask.
As we find ourselves adding new fonts to Squeak (in part for aesthetic reasons, in part for licensing purposes), we are running into issues related to the fact that each font encodes "special glyphs" differently, and some fonts don't have these special glyphs at all. It would be a good idea if we could adopt a standard encoding for Squeak Fonts, so to aid those converting new fonts for Squeak.
Squeak typically wants to have "straight line" single and double quotes, the underbar replaced with the assignment glyph, the caret replaced with the return glyph and so forth. In TimesRoman, the original characters were "tucked into" an empty space in the font glyphs array.
As an aside, I'd really prefer if Squeak displayed "SOMETHING" to indicate that a non-printing character was struck. Many times I have accidentally typed a control character or the like, which didn't display but was present in a string or symbol. If outside of a literal, you simply get a confusing syntax error, but it does damning things elsewhere. This could be accomplished simply by adding a "marker" character, leaving no empty spaces in the glyphs Form.
At any rate, it would be nice if we could settle on precisely what glyphs Squeak expects to have, and where, where we will or should "tuck away" the substituted glyphs for the Squeak-Unique symbols, and determine whether its a good idea to have "invisible" typable characters, or to fix it with a glyph (or some other means to display the same). Once we settled on a "standard" encoding, presumably derived from a standard "standard" encoding of some sort, we can start building tools to facilitate the efforts of those importing Squeak fonts.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andrew C. Greenberg -
Bruce ONeel -
David N. Smith (IBM) -
Georg Gollmann -
Joe Blask