Eric Muller had written: > In our OCR fonts, we have two glyphs named "erase" [...]
> and "grouperase" [...] I suspect those are mandated by these > standards. On the other hand, and I can't find traces of those in > Unicode, Arnold F. Winkler wrote: > I believe, Eric is talking about the characters on the attached page 8 of > the OCR standard. I don't have ISO 1073 at hand, only the German - DIN 66 008 (Jan 1978), which is essentially identical with ISO 1073/I-1976, and - DIN 66 009 (Sept. 1977), which is based on, but not identical with, ISO 1073/II-1976. DIN 66 008 contains the figure reported by Arnold Winkler. This standard does not specify the intended usage of these characters -- not beyond their expressive names. DIN 66 009 says about the equivalent OCR-B characters (my translation): > In case of a typo, a keyboard-driven device will print the Character Erase > on top of an erroneous character. This will cause the OCR reading device > to ignore this position. > The Group Erase may be either drawn by hand, or printed as discussed in > the previous paragraph. It will cause the OCR reading device to ignore > this position. So, these characters would never be read by an OCR device. They would be printed only in response to a function key (such as Erase Backwards), but never sent (encoded as characters) to a device. This means, that they will not normally be encoded, hence there will probably no need to assgin Uni- codes to them. The only exception could be a text discussing these characters, and their usage. I think, this sort of text would use figures rather than characters, to show the effect of overprinting in several variants. (The Erase, and the erased, character's positions may slightly differ.) So I guess, these characters are deliberately left off Unicode. Best wishes, Otto Stolz
