<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>WPF 3.5 to support the languages of ~1 billion more people</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/text/archive/2007/09/19/wpf-3-5-to-support-the-languages-of-1-billion-more-people.aspx</link><description>We're quite excited about our upcoming WPF 3.5 release which will now support seven Indic scripts!! For those of you curious about what languages this implies, here's a mapping between scripts, languages, and fonts: Script Font Languages Devangari Mangal</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: WPF 3.5 to support the languages of ~1 billion more people</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/text/archive/2007/09/19/wpf-3-5-to-support-the-languages-of-1-billion-more-people.aspx#5569347</link><pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:01:26 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:5569347</guid><dc:creator>someone</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Clearly, MS would agree that the best solution to fully utilize the WPF text engine's capabilities can only be a word processor or page layout app. Why doesn't MS themselves create a basic free version of a word processor which offers rich typography but isn't as powerful as Word?&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>