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. Regards, Andreas ---