It would be a nice way to address the issue.
In an ideal world, every computer would have a "last resort" font so that it can *always* find a glyph for a particular codepoint, and there would then be no need for any glyph that says "sorry, can't display".
I think you will probably agree that an ideal world will never quite arrive (imagine simultaneously updating 10^9 computers on the day that Unicode 4.36 is released): the question is whether a world *approaching* perfection should make provision for imperfection-- and I think it should.
After all, the instruction "If you see [], click here", remains valid whether the chance of seeing [] is 1/100, 1/1000000, or zero. The less likely that people are to need to follow that instruction, the better-- but the instruction remains valid even if they never actually need to use it.
At 18:30 01/08/02 -0400, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>Isn't font substitution more and more becoming the rule? Certainly I
>expect Mac OS X to search all its fonts for glyphs for a given codepoint,
>and when none can be found, I get the elegant symbols in the "Last Resort"
>font, all of which have a similar form, as described by Deborah Goldsmith,
>namely the glyphs from
>
>http://www.unicode.org/charts/
>
>expanded to show the name and Unicode scalar value range of the block in
>question.
>
>This sure seems like a nice way to address the issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 02:44:05 EDT