Bug#219551: Unicode xterms should do some kind of substitution for missing characters
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:11:29PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> If the default Unicode fonts are incomplete enough that they lack this
> character, then that is probably worthy of a bug (and this one could just
> be reassigned), but I fail to see why the application should be expected to
> do something fundamentally antithetical to the user's stated request for
> UTF-8, simply because some fonts claiming to be intended for Unicode fail
> to provide a useful set of Unicode entries.
2 points for:
1) Pragmatism: most fonts are not free, and missing chars might be
easily replaced
2) Even Unicode charts include information about 'equivalences' between
chars
2 points against:
1) Separation from upstream
2) Why just those ? Many chars should be provided when missing by
identical glyphs (even though they are different chars). See the Unicode
charts they are chokeful of equivalences.
>From somebody that regularly plays with fonts and adds chars in them,
--
JC Dubacq
Reply to: