On 07 Jan 2011, at 14:58, Simon Pepping wrote:

<snip />
> I had not yet thought so far. I reflected on the use of '#' as the
> replacement character for missing glyphs. Is that not particular to
> FOP, and should we not conform to Unicode and use the Unicode
> replacement character in such situations?

OK, I see now. That's indeed FOP legacy, and it seems preferable to show U+FFFD 
in such cases, if possible.

As for the effort involved, it could turn out to be fairly straightforward to 
change this behavior.
The # replacement char is hardcoded as org.apache.fop.fonts.Typeface.NOT_FOUND, 
which is used in only three places (the mapChar() implementations of Font, 
SingleByteFont and MultiByteFont).

<snip />
> ...PDF/U1F00.pdf,
> shows no character assignment for this code point.) That means that it
> does not even have properties, such as a linebreaking class. Using
> class 'Ambiguous' seems the right solution for that problem.

OK, I will make sure this is reflected in the code-comment.



Reply via email to