On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 12:09:16PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: > I nevertheless maintain that if the requested glyph /isn't/ available, > it is more useful to display some approximation of the requested > character than a little white box.
Uh, you seem to be rather glibly overlooking the requirements involved in "displaying some approximation of the requested character". Font rendering is not a technology that uses artificial intelligence to deduce what a glyph that isn't defined in a given font "should look like". > Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I'd be surprised if there weren't > libraries around that fall down the Unicode slippery slope already. > Mozilla already handles this kind of thing. So do gvim and > gnome-terminal, which suggests that it might be GTK in general that > handles it. It is even conceivable that the Unicode-handling library > might be separate from GTK itself; if that is the case, xterm may be > able to link to it? That may be a bad idea. Even if it isn't, it might be a good idea if the fonts in question troubled themselves to define a glyph for the codepoint. I trust you've filed a bug to that effect. -- G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux | let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
