Re: Großes Eszett

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Wed Jan 21 2009 - 16:29:54 CST

  • Next message: Simon Daniels: "RE: Großes Eszett"

    John Hudson wrote:

    > Leo Broukhis wrote:
    >> Oops. Take that back, my hissing should be directed at Microsoft. It's
    >> not Code2000, it's Times New Roman.
    > I've checked the cmap table of Vista Times New Roman, and there is no
    > mapping for U+1E9E. However, the font does not appear to contain a
    > .notdef glyph, which is the normal display when a font does not
    > support a character in the text string. It has an empty box glyph in
    > the GID 0 position of the font, which is where the .notdef glyph
    > belongs, but this glyph is encoded as U+0000 and is called /uni0000/
    > in the post table, so will not be reliably treated as .notdef. I'm not
    > sure why the application or browser is choosing to display the
    > unsupported character as S with cedilla. It seems a pretty random choice.
    I also saw S with cedilla. SOME font on my system has that glyph in
    that place; it shows up in other contexts for it, but haven't tracked it
    down yet...

    I guess someone was already using that spot.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 21 2009 - 16:31:53 CST