Well...
1. Since all existing fonts already display the new character correctly, there would be no overwhelming need for any font designer to alter any font at all. If they choose, despite this, to copy their own interpretation of 'missing character' from Glyph ID zero into the new slot, this will also give exactly the display that is required.
2. The shape of the new character would be mandated to be *inconsistent* between fonts: that is its purpose, and that is why no existing character is suitable for this purpose.
Leaving aside one or two minor details, I'd respond to your "what would be gained?" by saying that nothing would be gained now but future loss would be avoided (just like an insurance policy) because it would be guaranteed that at least one particular glyphless code point would never receive its own glyph in the future.
- Martin Kochanski.
At 19:09 01/08/02 -0700, 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?
>
>Even if the shape of the new character is mandated to be consistent
>between fonts, the actual missing glyph used in web pages by
>various fonts would still vary between fonts. Again, what would
>be gained?
>
>Best regards,
>
>James Kass.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 02:44:15 EDT