John Cowan wrote,
> James Kass scripsit: > > > 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? > > It would be guaranteed that every font would encode this character > using its missing-glyph glyph; in short, no font would have a mapped glyph > for the character, but it is a legitimate character in every other way. > Ahh, OK. So, if this character were proposed and accepted, then all a font designer would have to do to support it is absolutely nothing at all. Now I get it. Still think Kenneth Whistler's suggestions for covering all kinds of display problems would be better than encoding a new character for this limited purpose, though. Best regards, James Kass.
