On Sep 4 14:40, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2018-09-04 12:20, Steven Penny wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 16:18:21, Thomas Wolff wrote: > >> My vote is against the patch because the nodef glyph will often be just > >> blank > >> space which is certainly worse than ▒. > > Not according to the sample below: you would have to know that medium shade > means unavailable. > > >> If conhost does not provide a reasonable way to enquire 0xFFFD availability > >> it's conhost's fault, not cygwin's so why should cygwin implement a bad > >> compromise. If conhost ever improves, cygwin can adapt. > > This is some dangerous commentary. I would like to counter it now with some > > actual research. Using BabelMap: > > http://babelstone.co.uk/Software/BabelMap.html > > You can do "Fonts", "Font Coverage" and you will get this result with code > > point > > FFFD: > > yes: DejaVu Sans Mono > > no: > > - Consolas > > - Courier New > > - Lucida Console > > - MS Gothic > > - NSimSun > > - SimSun-ExtB > > This is concerning true, but we can then review the ".notdef glyph" for the > > problem fonts. As this glyph is not an actual character, i cant paste it > > here, > > but i will describe them below: > > empty rectangle: > > - Courier New > > - Lucida Console > > - MS Gothic > > - SimSun-ExtB > > rectangle with a question mark inside: Consolas > > These are both recommended .notdef glyphs. > > > none: NSimSun > > Valid OTF and TTF fonts must have a glyph with index entry 0 used for .notdef.
Discussion closed for 2.11.1. I'm going to release it as is, with 0xfffd as replacement char. A better/more complex solution will have to go into the next release. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
