Re: Definitions

From: Jim Allan (
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 16:01:22 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Tai Lue / Xishuang Banna Dai naming" wrote:

    >Unicode probably shouldn't impose any such requirement, the missing
    >glyph is not part of Unicode and is not mapped to any character.
    >The purpose and semantics of the missing glyph are: 'this is the
    >glyph that will be displayed by every application when the font
    >in use lacks a glyph assigned to the code point being called.'
    >Any other use of the missing glyph would be illegitimate and it
    >would also be highly misleading.
    I quite agree.

    Displaying either the specific missing glyph indicator in a particular
    font (most often an open rectangle) or displaying the glyph associated
    with U+FFFD would be misleading.

    But in fact applications aren't consistent in their use of these or in
    the use of "?" as yet a third way of indicating a glyph that the
    application can't reproduce.

    Probably the best solution would be to display a special glyph with the
    meaning "character not supported".

    Jim Allan

    >Please see
    >... the section about "Shape of .notdef glyph"
    >Best regards,
    >James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 18:12:04 EST