Follow-up Comment #6, bug #63354 (project groff):
[comment #0 original submission:]
> Every general-purpose font groff ships includes this character.
> Further, the Symbol font (which also includes it) being a default
> special font means that even users using a locally installed font that
> lacks a U+2026 will get it for free without doing any extra work.
>
> All this might argue for removing this definition from fallbacks.tmac
> entirely.
My realization in comment #3 that an .fchar definition supersedes a
special-font glyph only reinforces the above: if the user's current font lacks
a \[u2026], it is better to fall back to the well-formed one in Symbol than to
the more problematic one defined in fallbacks.tmac. Further, the fact that
it's nigh impossible to _remove_ Symbol as a special font means that a user
would have to resort to an "ugly hack" of the type Branden describes in bug
#63366 in order to ever be lacking a \[u2026]--and once someone is in this
power-user territory, I think it's fine if they're working without a net.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63354>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
