On 2014-05-02 19:08, Chris Angelico wrote: > This is another area where Unicode has given us "a great improvement > over the old method of giving satisfaction". Back in the 1990s on > OS/2, DOS, and Windows, a missing glyph might be (a) blank, (b) a > simple square with no information, or (c) copied from some other > font (common with dingbats fonts). With Unicode, the standard is to > show a little box *with the hex digits in it*. Granted, those boxes > are a LOT more readable for BMP characters than SMP (unless your > text is huge, six digits in the space of one character will make > them pretty tiny), and a "Unicode" font will generally include all > (or at least most) of the BMP, but it's still better than having no > information at all.
I'm pleased when applications & fonts work properly, using both the placeholder fonts for "this character is legitimate but I can't display it with a font, so here, have a box with the codepoint numbers in it until I'm directed to use a more appropriate font at which point you'll see it correctly" and the "somebody crammed garbage in here, so I'll display it with "�" (U+FFFD) which is designated for exactly this purpose". -tkc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
