> > Personally, I prefer U+27E8 and U+27E9 which are never double-width
> > glyphs.
>
> I agree; see the xterm screenshot in the other mail.
>
> So we _do_ need the possibility to map the same glyph to different
> Unicode code points depending on the output device. So for Unicode
> font files, the CHARSET section will normally be absent, but can
> also be present and contain just the exceptional mappings.
This is fine with me. It's basically a better solution than doing the
same on the macro level.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
