From: David Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 19 2009 - 08:27:49 CDT
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Andrew West <email@example.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, but that is ridiculous. The apparent ASCII encoding of the
> text is an extra layer added by Windows (GDI or whatever).
So's the PUA encoding. The font's just a blob of bytes until given
form and meaning by the OS, and Windows interprets it in many cases
with an ASCII encoding.
> According to what you say, if I were to write an application that
> applied an extra mapping layer to symbol fonts so that all the glyphs
> mapped in the PUA (or pseudo-PUA according to Peter) in the font are
> also mapped to GB2312 codepoints for Han ideographs so that the text
> "一二三" renders as smiling/neutral/frowning faces then you would have to
> claim that this was GB2312-encoded symbol text.
It is. The number of programs that support it is pretty low, and it's
a pretty marginal usage, but for that program and the users of that
program, it's GB2312-encoded symbol text.
-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 19 2009 - 08:30:23 CDT