On 08/01/2002 09:09:06 PM "James Kass" wrote:
>Even if a new character is proposed and accepted, font developers
>will probably just copy their own interpretation of 'missing
>character' from Glyph ID Zero into the new slot. What would
>be gained?
What would be gained is that there would be a way to interchange content in
which you can have a meta-description of what can occur with a font and
want to cite an instance of .notdef (see Martin's example). Sure, the
particular outline for GID0 will still vary from font to font, but Martin
isn't worried about that; in fact, he wants that. It's just a case of
font-dependent glyph variation.
>Even if the shape of the new character is mandated to be consistent
>between fonts
That's not part of what Martin is suggesting.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 00:16:32 EDT