On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:11:29PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > If the default Unicode fonts are incomplete enough that they lack this > character, then that is probably worthy of a bug (and this one could just > be reassigned), but I fail to see why the application should be expected to > do something fundamentally antithetical to the user's stated request for > UTF-8, simply because some fonts claiming to be intended for Unicode fail > to provide a useful set of Unicode entries.
2 points for: 1) Pragmatism: most fonts are not free, and missing chars might be easily replaced 2) Even Unicode charts include information about 'equivalences' between chars 2 points against: 1) Separation from upstream 2) Why just those ? Many chars should be provided when missing by identical glyphs (even though they are different chars). See the Unicode charts they are chokeful of equivalences. >From somebody that regularly plays with fonts and adds chars in them, -- JC Dubacq
