Bug 1756720 Comment 6 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

To summarize, the glyphs in the Wingdings font are encoded in the Unicode private use area at codepoints U+F020 .. U+F0FF. So by using those codepoints, they can be displayed just fine in Firefox (or in other browsers).

I guess Chrome *also* supports rendering them using the (extended-)ASCII codepoints that were used in pre-Unicode software, where "symbol fonts" just re-used the limited range of 8-bit codepoints and assigned arbitrary glyphs to them. This is of course terrible for interoperability. In a world of Unicode-based software, it should be universal and unambiguous that U+0041 is *always* a LATIN LETTER CAPITAL A; it is *never* a hand with two fingers raised.

(There is actually a standardized Unicode codepoint for VICTORY HAND at U+270C. However, Wingdings doesn't encode its glyph there, so to display its VICTORY HAND symbol you'd need to use something like  -- which is pretty sad from an interoperability perspective.)
To summarize, the glyphs in the Wingdings font are encoded in the Unicode private use area at codepoints U+F020 .. U+F0FF. So by using those codepoints, they can be displayed just fine in Firefox (or in other browsers).

I guess Chrome *also* supports rendering them using the (extended-)ASCII codepoints that were used in pre-Unicode software, where "symbol fonts" just re-used the limited range of 8-bit codepoints and assigned arbitrary glyphs to them. This is of course terrible for interoperability. In a world of Unicode-based software, it should be universal and unambiguous that U+0041 is *always* a LATIN LETTER CAPITAL A; it is *never* a hand with two fingers raised.

(There is actually a standardized Unicode codepoint for VICTORY HAND at U+270C. However, Wingdings doesn't encode its glyph there, so to display its VICTORY HAND symbol you'd need to use something like `` -- which is pretty sad from an interoperability perspective.)

Back to Bug 1756720 Comment 6