On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Probst <michael dot probst03 at web dot de> wrote: > > > It just makes more sense than giving a code point to a mere glyph > > variant (U+201F); or the other way round: If even that has been > > encoded already, the RIGHT HIGH 6 should have been before, and if it > > hasn't, it should be now. > > I'm kind of surprised that I haven't been able to find an FAQ on the > Unicode site that talks about fonts with incorrect glyphs, or incorrect > kerning, and explains that these problems aren't solved by encoding new > characters with identical glyphs and slightly different properties. > Either the FAQ doesn't exist, or it should be more prominent. > Please check the FAQs, and if there isn't one, then please write one. I think you can submit it via http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html (select "Submission (FAQ...)" as the Type). markus
