From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 12:06:17 EST
> Philippe Verdy wrote,
> The font specs strongly recommend that font developers use the
> narrow white box, or somthing very similar, for the missing glyph.
> But, some developers
Including Microsoft itself in some of its fonts installed with Windows XP...
Look at Symbol, David, Miriam, Terminal...
> do make up some interesting alternatives,
> and, especially in older fonts with "custom" ("hack") encodings,
The above fonts, and many others in the supplementary fonts coming with
Office, are not "hacks" but they often display the "?" glyph...
> the developer might not have known that the first glyph in the
> font would be used as the missing glyph. (Or the developer might
> have known but disregarded the recommendations.)
My opinion is that this is an interaction between the legacy support for
Windows 3.x/95 with .FON bitmap fonts. When a glyph is not found in the
TrueType font, then Windows may look into the .FON and finds a glyph there
There are other combinations also coming from Printer settings (which are
used in WYSIWYG documents that try to map immediately the display font to
its corresponding printer font).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 12:50:07 EST