From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 07 2007 - 08:05:04 CST
-On [20071207 14:29], Jukka K. Korpela (email@example.com) wrote:
>If it is reserved space, it does not matter whether something is planned
>there now. It's incorrect to use such code positions anyway, even if you
>would thereby anticipate their future assignment. Private use code
>positions are a better choice.
I reported their use of reserved code points back as well as a lot of glyphs
that are not implemented but do not have a .notdef glyph in place either.
>In _fonts_, the situation may be different: a position in a font need
>not correspond to a Unicode code position. This depends on the encoding
>of the font. The crucial question is: if you take some Unicode encoded
>data and use the font to render the text, will unassigned code numbers
>be presented properly (using symbols for unassigned positions) or as
>some graphic characters?
In this case some things were in need of revision if Stix really has as aim to
make technical publication better supported. It's a good step in the right
Otherwise, the fonts really work nicely and given how Opera added MathML
support (not fully fleshed out yet) in the 9.5 beta, things look very
interesting on that technical publication front.
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ It's our wits which make us men...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 07 2007 - 08:06:46 CST