From: Adam Twardoch (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2008 - 12:27:46 CDT
I think the idea to add the glyphs used in the Last Resort font as new
Unicode characters is absurd (I still don't understand if this was an
April Fool's joke or not).
Those stub glyphs that are used as replacement glyphs for Unicode
codepoints, or one could view them as representative glyphs for entire
Unicode blocks. Why would glyphs used solely to solve an intermediate
technical problem that is only a meta-problem of the Unicode encoding
standard, the Alans Smithee of Unicode characters if you will, get an
identity on their own?
Of course, if a new "Last Resort" block is added, then it will also need
a Last Resort glyph for that block. Will that glyph also be added as a
new Unicode character? If so, will it be placed inside of the Last
Resort block itself? (That would be rather self-referential, wouldn't
it? Even without it, it is.)
I cannot imagine any single occasion why a human user would want to
explicitly key in a Last Resort character to exchange some encoded
You don't seriously wanna do it, do you?
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2008 - 12:30:29 CDT