. > (Please note that in my original post, I was only expressing an > opinion of the way things "should be", rather than stating that > "this is way it is".)
Sigh, '...the way it is...'. To clarify (or make another try at it), Jim Allan's original post made it clear that he was expressing his interpretation of the requirements. I figured his take was probably "spot on", so I wasn't objecting to his interpretation, but rather taking issue with any requirements which would lead to this interpretation. Now as I review this thread (and find one of my very own typos), I wonder if Jim Allan and I are "on the same page" when we speak of "missing glyph"? It means something very specific in the font jargon. Best regards, James Kass .
