From: James Kass (thunder-bird@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:20:03 CDT
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> There's no way the
>application writer can rely on the font in that situation, short of
>there being an additional agreement with *all* font vendors what a
>"perfectly good" glyph is.
Generally, the application is *required* to use a glyph from the
selected font, if the selected font has a glyph mapped with the
character being called. The application must rely on the font --
that's what fonts are for.
Asmus is correct, though, in this section. Applications can substitute
pictures in lieu of font-specific control picture character glyphs. The
choice is best left to the application designer. (T.U.S. 5.0 p. 508 for
more detail.)
>We disagree about what is desirable behavior on fundamental level, I
>believe, so it's not useful for me to comment on the remainder of your
>message.
It can often be useful to identify points of divergence. It can help
promote better understanding of two sides of an issue, for one thing.
I wonder if we differ in the value we place on the importance of
authorial intent.
If an author takes time and trouble to insert a VS character, there's
a reason for it (however nebulous). Because I regard intent as so
important, I want to be able to either see what the author intended
(everything working properly, normal display), or I want to be
able to see that I can't see what the author intended (broken display
indicates a problem). In WYSIWYG editors, in plain-text editors,
in the plain-text world.
It is hoped that options will be preserved for users with various
expectations.
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:24:20 CDT