Peter Constable wrote,
> But he's looking for a character that can be guaranteed to be displayed by > any font as a missing glyph would be, for meta-descriptive reasons (kind of > like the control pictures are provided for meta-descriptive reasons). The > recommendations in 5.3 really don't apply here. A new character proposal is > the appropriate action for him to pursue. > Even if a new character is proposed and accepted, font developers will probably just copy their own interpretation of 'missing character' from Glyph ID Zero into the new slot. What would be gained? Even if the shape of the new character is mandated to be consistent between fonts, the actual missing glyph used in web pages by various fonts would still vary between fonts. Again, what would be gained? Best regards, James Kass.
