Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 14:01:54 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"

    On 28/04/2004 07:24, Dean Snyder wrote:

    > ...
    >But if there were multiple PUA fonts with competing code points on a
    >single system, I suggest that OS'es should simply go with the first font
    >(defining "first" as that font whose file name has the lowest Unicode-
    >code-point-based "alphabetic" order).
    Or, since a system must use some font to display the text, in many cases
    it will be able to determine which font is currently specified for
    display of this text and use the properties (if any) defined in that
    font. Of course this doesn't work for entirely plain text processing
    processes, not tied to display. But presumably in such cases it would be
    possible to set as a parameter for the process which font to take the
    properties from. When such processes are rewritten to take advantage of
    this new character properties mechanism, it would probably be easier
    9and certainly quicker!) to get them to accept a new parameter than to
    get them to search through perhaps hundreds of fonts on the system for
    the ones which support each PUA character individually.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 14:48:52 EDT