Re: Revised proposal for "Missing character" glyph

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 11:38:05 EDT


Dean Snyder <dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu> wrote:

> Good idea - the big attraction being extensibility. But a detraction
> is that it would typically mean multiple, or at least explicit,
> deployment at the application level on any given platform. (I'm
> presuming such a system service would present an optional API to
> application developers, who may or may not be using higher level
> system services for rendering text). But a font-based approach, being
> lower level, would be inherited by all software including that which
> bypasses all but the lowest level system services - there's nothing
> for application developers to do in such a scenario.

The ability to pinpoint individual glyphs and get code point and other
information could be provided as a system service.

Edit controls (edit boxes, text widgets) in Windows already come
equipped with a right-click menu that allows the user to cut, copy,
paste, and select all. With Windows 2000 (I don't know about NT 4)
there are also Unicode-specific options, such as "Right-to-left reading
order" and "Insert Unicode control character" (which leads to a submenu
where you can choose exciting options like IAFS and NADS, at least until
somebody catches you and calls the police).

It's not hard to imagine that menu being extended with a "Character
Info" or "What's This Glyph?" item, which would display a Help cursor
(question mark + arrow pointing NNW). The user could click on a glyph
within the edit control, and the system would display all the relevant
information about the character corresponding to that glyph in a small
ToolTip™-style window.

Of course, I have no idea if such a thing will ever be added to Windows
(or any other OS). I'm sure it's not as simple to implement as I'm
making it sound. But the advantage would be the same as what Dean
envisions for a font-based solution -- applications would get the
support "for free," instead of having to re-implement it in multiple,
slightly different ways.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 09:57:15 EDT