Re: Control picture glyphs

From: James Kass (
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:20:03 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Cadratin (was: RE: Control picture glyphs (was Re: Apostrophes at"

    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
    more detail.)

    >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
    authorial intent.

    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

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:24:20 CDT