It's pretty well known that Win95's GDI does a mapping to 2219 for B7
dating from an earlier confusion over whether B7 is a middle dot or a
bullet. This manifests itself in the appearance of the glyph, but not in
any code conversion.
I've never heard anything about B7 being mapped to 22C5. Altho they both
are dots... That's a pretty good object lesson why disunifying an encodeing
too much can generate more trouble for more people than it saves the few.
This 'mapping' is apparently a GDI internal hack and not in the standard
mapping functions, as Murray reports (and as anybody can verify easily).
Win95 GDI is also known to behave differently when you present it with a
string as compared to presenting it with a single character. And, in some
cases the ExtTextOutA and ExtTextOutW calls behave differently when called
with the 'same' character, once encoded in an 8-bit Windows code page (A)
and in Unicode (W). FE Versions of Win95 are less robust than the US
version in that regard.
I don't know what if any of this is different on Win98.
NT does not seem to suffer from any of this, or at least, the W version
(Unicode version) of the API works and that's what I use almost exclusively.
Some symbol fonts don't work properly with the W APIs even under NT and
require the A version of the API's. But in this case, 'code conversion' is
just the same as truncating the character, since these fonts use an
essentially 'raw' mapping from 00-FF (modulo some inaccessible code
Well behaved symbol fonts can be accessed using F000-F0FF in the private
At 06:16 PM 8/11/99 -0700, Murray Sargent wrote:
>I'm curious too. Which code page did you use on your Win95 and WinNT
>computers? The system mapping function is MultiByteToWideChar() and for all
>the codepages 1250 - 1258, Win9x and WinNTx map 183 (0xB7) to 0xB7 (MIDDLE
>DOT). To see these mappings and some common DBCS mappings as well, click on
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 21:22:58 -0700 (PDT), faghihi wrote:
>> >The character cell with decimal code 173 has problem in Windows 95 .
>> >mapped to the Unicode index?
>> >for example The character cell with decimal code 183 has different
>> >in Windows 95 and Windows NT. In Windows 95 it is mapped to the Unicode
>> >index 22C5h, but in Windows NT it is mapped to 00B7h.
>> I'm just curious: what do you mean by "In Windows 95 it is mapped..."?
>> How does this problem manifest itself?
>> Torsten Mohrin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT