Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 02.12.2008 18:40:21 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
<snip/>
(example: with {"zero", "zerooldstyle"} zero is added as a fall-back for
zerooldstyle and vice-versa). I’m not sure this is very useful anyway:
the usage of the method shows that the first glyph is a ‘common’ one,
likely to be found in any font.
Bad luck, Vincent, as exactly these alternatives groups have been
introduced for a font which did not contain "zero", only "zerooldstyle".
http://markmail.org/message/koi5m2pfsrf32ud3
Hmmm. Sh*t ;-)
Plus, while it makes sense to replace
minus-sign with hyphen-minus when minus-sign is not available, the other
way around is not acceptable. Anyway, since in practice this will
probably never happen, the whole thing can probably be simplified.
Not acceptable under whose authority? You're stating your opinion.
Under the authority of the Unicode standard as I understand it. In some
cases hyphen-minus may be interpreted as a minus sign (section 6.2,
“General Punctuation”), but the opposite appears nowhere.
Hey, this is just a mechanism that tries to get a reasonable result if a
glyph in a font is missing. If someone is not happy with the result,
he's free to use a different font.
<snip/>
Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
