From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 09:34:32 CDT
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your question, but what I meant was this. It
> is possible that some fonts (and documents) have already been created
> where the implementers took a look at the Standard, said "ah, the
> 'MULTI-REST' is really a double whole rest", and went ahead and used it
> as such. If we change the normative reference glyph for MULTI-REST, it
> will indeed bring it in line with the name, but it may produce
> backward-incompatible encoding.
This would be comparable to any case where workarounds were being used
prior to something being encoded.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 09:32:28 CDT