On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
> Michael Probst <michael dot probst03 at web dot de> wrote:
>
> > It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph
> > variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been
> > encoded already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it
> > hasn't, it should be now.
>
> I'm kind of surprised that I haven't been able to find an FAQ on the
> Unicode site that talks about fonts with incorrect glyphs, or incorrect
> kerning, and explains that these problems aren't solved by encoding new
> characters with identical glyphs and slightly different properties.
> Either the FAQ doesn't exist, or it should be more prominent.
>
Please check the FAQs, and if there isn't one, then please write one. I
think you can submit it via http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html (select
"Submission (FAQ...)" as the Type).
markus
Received on Mon Apr 30 2012 - 12:09:45 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 30 2012 - 12:09:46 CDT