*TT, et al* Yes lets start "* Unicode and Font Support in TW* " thread, however I was keen to make it easier for us to finalise on our glyphs to support closing that issue., thus relevant to this thread.
This may be a possibility to build our own targeted font, but its looking to me like most platforms have access to glyphs for a wide range of Unicode already. I also think making the fonts visible can also be an option. If we publish a wiki, and we rely on Unicode characters for customise, and present output without those same characters visible, just used in code, all should work as expected. Only when editing a tiddler containing such characters they would not be able to read them, or tell them apart, if they do not have the correct font. Ie functionality remains, visibility does not. The customise plugin can display these critical characters and note if they appear all the same, they need to update fonts available to view the glyphs. Or activate a sub-font with the select glyphs defined. >From what I can see so far, a lot of platforms will have little trouble with the vast majority of Unicode Characters because of the sets commonly distributed to devices. *Jeremy,* Interesting and Curious what you saw, I never did because I do not use rounded buttons. Many Unicode characters have different widths which must give rise to this. *PMario et al, Inline;* I just found this document which contains the matched braces available throughout Unicode https://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/Blocks.txt which may prove useful in the subsequent inline features. I continue to work on compiling information in a searchable tiddlywiki for managing "any" Unicode character or range. Tony On Wednesday, 2 December 2020 at 04:42:53 UTC+11 @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > Ciao TonyM & PMario > > TonyM wrote: > >> Here is my initial draft Glyphs 5.1.23-prerelease — Identifying >> reliable Unicode Glyphs on TiddlyWiki Build Date (anthonymuscio.github.io) >> <https://anthonymuscio.github.io/PreReleaseGlyphs.html> >> > > *TonyM*: That demo shows the issues arising over font support are > generic---Not Just for PMario Markup. I think we should pursue the broader > scope in a NEW thread. Maybe "Unicode and Font Support in TW". Do you want > to start it? I have some solutions in mind. But they are refactory to this > thread. > > *PMario*: I think TonyM is *definitely heading in the right direction* on > trying to pin down font support issues for your Custom Markup by > illustration. > I can see the beginning of a *solution*. One where reliable markup glyphs > could be always relied upon whatever platform you are on. It would be *a > very minimal font embedded in TW for JUST markup glyphs. It would be > kilobytes, not megabytes*. To get to the point of proof-of-concept I need > some days yet, but I'm getting close. Its just trudge over the Unicode BMP > to establish which fonts would provide the glyphs needed, cost free, to > make a good "TW-MarkupGlyphsFont". > > Best wishes > TT > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/bf0c0e64-bd67-455a-a6fe-2cf9d25fcb0bn%40googlegroups.com.
