Re: more dingbats in plain text

From: David Starner (
Date: Sun Apr 19 2009 - 08:27:49 CDT

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: more dingbats in plain text"

    On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Andrew West <> 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