From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 08:16:30 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote,
>Unverified assertions. The fact is that it became popular only because of
>PostScript, and the encoding of the Dingbats block is following the order of
>the Adobe encoding (except for those characters that were already encoded
>and with which they were unified: this creates some holes in the block, but
>many fonts display the same characters for these holes as in the PostScript
>encoding, assuming that a simple base code point is added to the legacy
>8-bit Postscript code map, even if the standard unified codepoints are also
>displayed with the same glyphs).
Thank you for these unverified assertions. It's also good to note
that they are clearly indicated to be such.
To be fair, I may have misinterpreted your comments. If the "it"
in the phrase "The fact is that it became popular only becuase..."
refers to the Unicode range rather than the term 'dingbats',
then I possibly did misinterpret your earlier comments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 14 2007 - 08:19:24 CDT