From: Andrew West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 10:32:33 CDT
On 14/10/2007, Philippe Verdy <email@example.com> wrote:
> Unverified assertions. The fact is that it became popular only because of
> PostScript, and the encoding of the Dingbats block is following the order of
> the Adobe encoding (except for those characters that were already encoded
> and with which they were unified: this creates some holes in the block, but
> many fonts display the same characters for these holes as in the PostScript
> encoding, assuming that a simple base code point is added to the legacy
> 8-bit Postscript code map, even if the standard unified codepoints are also
> displayed with the same glyphs).
That's interesting. As not a single font on my system fills in any of
the reserved holes in the Unicode Dingbats block with anything other
than the .notdef glyph, perhaps you would care to share with us a list
of the "many fonts" which do so on your computer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 14 2007 - 10:35:43 CDT