From: Marion Gunn (mgunn@egt.ie)
Date: Sat Apr 18 2009 - 11:38:02 CDT
I don't understand, Peter. I understood that that was a practical,
widespread application of Unicode PUA. If not, what is?
mg
Scríobh Peter Constable:
> Not 100% true. These fonts are encoded in a encoding called "symbol"
> -- which means a font-specific encoding. The Symbol encoding uses a
> 16-bit representation in the fonts, and typically fonts have
> characters mapped from F020 to F0FF. It looks a lot like Unicode PUA,
> though strictly speaking it is not.
>
>
> Peter
>
> ________________________________________
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn [cfynn@gmx.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: Unicode Mailing List
> Subject: Re: more dingbats in plain text
>
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>
>> The Wingdings and Webdings family of fonts, distributed with every copy
>> of Windows for over a decade, absolutely qualify as "compatibility
>> character sets" according to the guidelines being applied for the emoji.
>>
>
> At least Microsoft has always mapped the glyphs in Wingdings and
> Webdings to the PUA.
>
> - Chris
>
>
>
-- Marion Gunn * eGteo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, An Charraig Dhubh, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire/Ireland * mgunn@egt.ie * eamonn@egt.ie *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 18 2009 - 15:20:13 CDT