Re: Suggest installing more fonts?

[Stephen Leake]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> [ FWIW, I don't think replacing those tofu chars with some "ugly default"
>>> is a good option: it's more work with very little benefit if any, since
>>> the problem still remains largely unchanged. ]
>> FWIW, I do not agree with this.
>
> I kind of guessed ;-)
>
>> It is much better from a end-user viewpoint to see something they can
>> decypher, even if it has a non-optimal rendering, than to see a hex
>> code in a box.
>
> [ What you describe is the "very little benefit" I referred to.  ]
>
> I think most users won't be happy with the result in both cases,
> so they'll still want to find a fix for the problem [ This is "the
> problem still remains largely unchanged" that I referred to.  ]

I would be happier with an ugly but readable solution.

This problem occurs most often for me when reading email (this list
especially); the message is refering to some specific character that
is involved in some problem.

If I knew what the character was, I would not bother to track down the
appropriate script/font.

Apparently I can type C-x C-8 = to see what the character is by Unicode
name, so that's a partial workaround.

>>> - Does the problem only affect Emacs and not other applications? If so
>>> why?  If not, then what do other applications do about it?

I'll have to remember to view a problematic message via Firefox, to see
if it can display the character.

-- 
Written from unceded ancestral homelands of the Huichiun, an Ohlone
people,for which I pay <a href=