Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 21:20:26 EST

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Panther PUA, etc, etc, etc (was Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static)"

    I had a problem with this too, for a while (previous discussion on this
    list helped clear it up). Klingon letters had been placed in the PUA by
    the CSUR (ConsScript Unicode Registry, an unofficial allocation of PUA
    space to constructed alphabets), based on the PUA assignment of the
    Linux kernel, and a few of the letters overlapped some Adobe or Apple
    assignments, so documents would come out with ®'s and such all over it
    instead of letters. Assigning the font explicitly helped.

    I guess that's the problem with an inherently unregulated space like the
    PUA. You can say "well, I get to allocate it any way that I want, I'm
    using my own program," but you're not using *only* your own program.
    The OS, etc. may have other ideas.


    On 01/13/04 19:58, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    >From: "Deborah Goldsmith" <>
    >>FYI, Panther was changed to not do font substitution in the user part
    >>of the PUA (it still does it in the corporate part).
    >Where is the limit between the "user part of the PUA" and the "corporate
    >part" of the PUA"? I was told that there was no strict limit between them
    >for PUAs in the BMP. But Your experience may show a common practice used by
    >font vendors.
    >Also what is the status of planes 15 and 16? are they all in the "user part"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 21:56:05 EST