Re: Revised proposal for "Missing character" glyph

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Aug 31 2002 - 20:01:09 EDT

Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?)"
In reply to: Doug Ewell: "Re: Revised proposal for "Missing character" glyph"
Next in thread: Carl W. Brown: "RE: Proposal (was: "Missing character" glyph)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

I wrote:

> It would make sense for a Unicode-specific tool such as this to only
> accept data in WM_UNICHAR format, not WM_CHAR. Unicode data in
> WM_CHAR format is pretty much guaranteed to have gone through some
> conversion step.

Well, duh. Of course I meant CF_UNICODETEXT and CF_TEXT, not WM_UNICHAR
and WM_CHAR.

-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California

Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?)"
In reply to: Doug Ewell: "Re: Revised proposal for "Missing character" glyph"
Next in thread: Carl W. Brown: "RE: Proposal (was: "Missing character" glyph)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 20:46:42 EDT