>At 12:54 5/31/2002, John Cowan wrote:
>>I rather like the Microsoft approach of assigning them [ornaments] to the
>>F000-F0FF, which sort of preserves the pseudo-ASCII nature of them without
>>interfering with semantic text processing that assigns ASCII semantics to
>>the 0000-00FF codepoints.
>I don't see the value in preserving the pseudo-ASCII ordering if you're
>giving up the easy keyboard access and, of course, any measure of backwards
>compatibility with the 8-bit versions of the fonts
IIRC, when Microsoft Word uses F0xx internally, but effectively maps
the keyboard to those characters when you're using an appropriately
marked font. Is compatibility on this level really all that important
with an ornament font? There shouldn't be data encoded in it . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jun 01 2002 - 14:55:07 EDT