From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 10:28:30 CDT
A similar annoyance is the fact that so many fonts don't map the
default-ignorable code points (like variation selectors) to a zero-width
invisible glyph by default. Expecially since with True/OpenType, it is
essentially free to add support for a character that has the same glyph as
one you already have in the font.
Maybe what would help would be a document aimed at font developers, which
contained a list of the default mappings that they should supply
Mark
On 8/23/07, Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> Eric Muller <emuller at adobe dot com> wrote:
>
> > ... Most of the time, it should be U+2010 ‐ HYPHEN. However, the
> > support in fonts for U+2010 is less than perfect, and some users they
> > will get a .notdef glyph.
>
> Speaking only for myself, the poor level of support for U+2010 in many
> mainstream fonts with otherwise decent Unicode coverage is a frequent
> annoyance, and a puzzlement.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>
-- Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 10:31:58 CDT