>Any unassigned code point you choose will get the missing glyph
>display for the font that happens to be selected for that character (on
>many systems that's no longer easily predictable, due to font
>substitutions). In short, there's no guarantee that *any* specific code
>point will give you the 'typical' display.
Isn't font substitution more and more becoming the rule? Certainly I
expect Mac OS X to search all its fonts for glyphs for a given codepoint,
and when none can be found, I get the elegant symbols in the "Last Resort"
font, all of which have a similar form, as described by Deborah Goldsmith,
namely the glyphs from
http://www.unicode.org/charts/
expanded to show the name and Unicode scalar value range of the block in
question.
This sure seems like a nice way to address the issue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 16:34:53 EDT