Follow-up Comment #16, bug #65716 (group groff): [comment #14 comment #14:] > The problem is that now (since 1.24) we include the UCP in the > comment field of all fonts generated by afmtodit, so we are > dispersing incorrect information, which causes confusion.
That's _a_ problem, yes. The groff font files oughtn't include Unicode values
that groff itself doesn't support.
But I'm not sure it's _the_ problem: the obsolete values don't originate with
groff; other sources in the world have them too, and it's not clear to me
that, for example, the thread linked in comment #11 originated with obsolete
Unicode comments in groff font files.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65716>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
