To: <unicode(at)unicode.org>
From: Jon Hanna jon(at)spin.ie
Received: (qmail 20177 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jul 2003 12:39:53 -0000

from unicode.org (209.235.17.55) by ns.need.bg with SMTP; 11 Jul 2003 
12:39:53 -0000

from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) 
by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6BCa5s12700; Fri, 
11 Jul 2003 08:36:05 -0400

with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list unicode); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:36:05 -0400
 (EDT)

from pooh.spin.ie (quake.spin.ie [213.190.156.86]) by unicode.org 
(8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h6BCa3s12693 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003
 08:36:04 -0400

(qmail 56872 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2003 12:45:28 -0000

from unknown (HELO cerridwen) (192.168.0.40) by 0 with SMTP; 11 Jul
 2003 12:45:28 -0000
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:38:22 +0100
XMailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
MIMEVersion: 1.0
ContentType: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
XPriority: 
Importance: Normal
Subject: RE: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic
Body: > The Win32 Text APIs (such as TextOut) actually DO support
> UniScribe transparently on Windows XP... In most applications,
> this means that the UniScribe support works without requiring
> explicit calls to the Uniscribe API.

And Windows2000. However some ways of using the Text APIs will meant that
few of the benefits of UniScribe are gained. In particular an application
may use the API a character at a time (for fine control of placement) and
base and combining characters will then be separated unless particular care
is taken to avoid this.

Hence, while it is true that an application using TextOut is indirectly
using UniScribe, it does not follow that they are doing so in a manner
appropriate for solving the problem described.