From: Marion Gunn (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 18 2009 - 11:38:02 CDT
I don't understand, Peter. I understood that that was a practical,
widespread application of Unicode PUA. If not, what is?
Scríobh Peter Constable:
> Not 100% true. These fonts are encoded in a encoding called "symbol"
> -- which means a font-specific encoding. The Symbol encoding uses a
> 16-bit representation in the fonts, and typically fonts have
> characters mapped from F020 to F0FF. It looks a lot like Unicode PUA,
> though strictly speaking it is not.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: Unicode Mailing List
> Subject: Re: more dingbats in plain text
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>> The Wingdings and Webdings family of fonts, distributed with every copy
>> of Windows for over a decade, absolutely qualify as "compatibility
>> character sets" according to the guidelines being applied for the emoji.
> At least Microsoft has always mapped the glyphs in Wingdings and
> Webdings to the PUA.
> - Chris
-- Marion Gunn * eGteo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, An Charraig Dhubh, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire/Ireland * email@example.com * firstname.lastname@example.org *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 18 2009 - 15:20:13 CDT