From: Jim Allan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 16:01:22 EST
>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".
>... the section about "Shape of .notdef glyph"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 18:12:04 EST