If we are using ligatures in our apps, this isn't a problem. If someone wants to remove PUA glyphs, great! But this has no reason to block.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@annevk.nl> To: "Wilson Page" <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> Cc: "Jonathan Kew" <j...@mozilla.com>, "Patryk Adamczyk" <padamc...@mozilla.com>, "John Daggett" <jdagg...@mozilla.com>, "b2g-internal" <b2g-inter...@mozilla.org>, "L. David Baron" <dba...@mozilla.com>, "Jaime Chen" <jac...@mozilla.com>, "Jonathan Watt" <jw...@mozilla.com>, "Jet Villegas" <j...@mozilla.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <hey...@gmail.com>, "Vivien" <vnico...@mozilla.com>, "sicking" <sick...@mozilla.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <rocalla...@mozilla.com>, "mozilla.dev.platform group" <dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:26:19 PM Subject: Re: Icon fonts in FxOS On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Wilson Page <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm late to the party, but I don't know what the PUA issue is? Code points carry semantics. If you assign meaning to unassigned code points through fonts, you have created a portability problem. That is, the font is required to make sense out of the code points. This was a problem with Emoji until it was standardized by Unicode. It would be good to avoid doing that again. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
