From: Jim Allan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 13:09:31 EST
James Kass posted:
> Any application which substitutes missing glyphs for PUA characters,
> when a valid font which covers those code points is active,
> should be considered non conformant.
From Unicode 4.0, Chapter 3, Conformance, rule C8:
_C8 A process shall not assume that it is required to interpret any
particular coded character representation._
o Process that interpret only a subset of Unicode characters are
allowed; there is no blanket requirement to interpret _all_ Unicode
o Any means for specifying a subset of characters that a process can
interpret is outside the scope of this standard.
I take this to mean that any application can refuse to interpret PUA
code points and still be conformant.
I do not find any rules as to what an application ought to do with code
points that it does not interpret. Unless I'm missing something,
substitution of a missing glyph indication would be conformant.
I think it would be better if such an application indicated this in some
other way than by the same missing glyph that it would use to indicate a
character was not found in the current font, but I don't see that
Unicode imposes any such requirement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 14:03:19 EST