From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:20:03 CDT
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> There's no way the
>application writer can rely on the font in that situation, short of
>there being an additional agreement with *all* font vendors what a
>"perfectly good" glyph is.
Generally, the application is *required* to use a glyph from the
selected font, if the selected font has a glyph mapped with the
character being called. The application must rely on the font --
that's what fonts are for.
Asmus is correct, though, in this section. Applications can substitute
pictures in lieu of font-specific control picture character glyphs. The
choice is best left to the application designer. (T.U.S. 5.0 p. 508 for
>We disagree about what is desirable behavior on fundamental level, I
>believe, so it's not useful for me to comment on the remainder of your
It can often be useful to identify points of divergence. It can help
promote better understanding of two sides of an issue, for one thing.
I wonder if we differ in the value we place on the importance of
If an author takes time and trouble to insert a VS character, there's
a reason for it (however nebulous). Because I regard intent as so
important, I want to be able to either see what the author intended
(everything working properly, normal display), or I want to be
able to see that I can't see what the author intended (broken display
indicates a problem). In WYSIWYG editors, in plain-text editors,
in the plain-text world.
It is hoped that options will be preserved for users with various
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:24:20 CDT