Re: Definitions

From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 03:20:34 EST

Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Definitions"

Previous message: John Cowan: "Mail outage"
In reply to: jameskass@att.net: "Re: Definitions"
Next in thread: Alexandre Arcouteil: "compatibility characters (in XML context)"
Reply: Alexandre Arcouteil: "compatibility characters (in XML context)"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: <jameskass@att.net>
> Please see
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/recom.htm
> ... the section about "Shape of .notdef glyph"

Thanks for pointing a Microsoft recommandation for the undefined glyph
(glyph id=0) that every TT font should implement (so this would affect also
OT fonts).

But there are several fonts in Windows and Office that still display a
normal question mark for this glyph ID, instead of a narrow white box as
expected (this may be a caveat within the system compatibility font mappings
with system fonts which are not TrueType but simple .FON bitmap fonts)...

Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Definitions"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Mail outage"
In reply to: jameskass@att.net: "Re: Definitions"
Next in thread: Alexandre Arcouteil: "compatibility characters (in XML context)"
Reply: Alexandre Arcouteil: "compatibility characters (in XML context)"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Definitions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 04:09:38 EST