From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 17 2010 - 08:07:38 CDT
Marc Durdin <marc dot durdin at tavultesoft dot com> wrote:
> if it will shape correctly as well for it to be useful to the end
> user. Dotted circles are only marginally better than square boxes.
> And that's a much harder question to answer...
I suspect that in the real world, the problem of no support vs. any
support at all is more common and has greater ramifications than the
quality of support. Couple that with how hard the quality question is
to answer, and this becomes a matter of the good being the enemy of the
It was pointed out to me privately that some fonts lie about the support
they provide, e.g. by providing cmap entries that lead to .notdef
glyphs, or by hijacking reserved code points. Of course, in that case
the query would return inaccurate results. Everybody has to play fair
for this to work.
To the extent that it would be a security hazard to be able to query
your browser, or have your browser query the rendering engine, to
determine the level of rendering support, there is very, very little
that anyone can do to solve Ed's problem that wouldn't be a security
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s Â
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 17 2010 - 08:13:34 CDT