From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 08:21:50 EDT
At 23:34 +0200 2003-07-19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>I'm still convinced that these glyphs are much more informative than
>a default glyph showing a "?", a white rectangle, or a black losange
>with a mirrored white "?"...
Of course they are.
>And Unicode also uses these glyphs in the index page for its charmaps,
You mean "for its charts". Please.
>but they are shown as poor bitmaps (may be the PDF or book version
>use your glyphs in a document-embedded font)
That page is in HTML.
>How were your glyphs contributed?
I, uh, drew them.
>With SVG graphics containing character objects and drawing primitives
I have no idea what this means. I used Fontographer.
>(it seems the simplest way to derive them, using the table shown in
>Apple's web page, with some exceptions for unassigned, reserved,
>surrogates symbols which require a distinct design)?
You can't "derive" these. You have to draw them individually.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 08:59:05 EDT