Michael Probst <michael dot probst03 at web dot de> wrote:
> It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph
> variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been
> encoded already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it
> hasn't, it should be now.
I'm kind of surprised that I haven't been able to find an FAQ on the
Unicode site that talks about fonts with incorrect glyphs, or incorrect
kerning, and explains that these problems aren't solved by encoding new
characters with identical glyphs and slightly different properties.
Either the FAQ doesn't exist, or it should be more prominent.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell Received on Mon Apr 30 2012 - 11:51:26 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 30 2012 - 11:51:27 CDT