Talk:Windows Glyph List 4

message: The legend to the char table is in an odd place.  Could someone with some more CSS knowledge place that table to the right of the character table? Hamaryns 11:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legend placement

message: A drive-by IP posted this in september of 2006, on top of the table:
BUG: These range definitions only account for 413 of the 652 chars - need to proof against spec. Latin Extended looks wrong.
Nobody could be bothered to check this for over a year? The table was correct, had not changed since the note was added. My edit summary indicated there were 725 characters, this was a mistake (there are 653) but I stand by my assessment of the correctness of the table itself. The table yields the following list of ranges:
* 0020-007E, 00A0-00FF, 0100-017F, 0192, 01FA-01FF, 02C6-02C7, 02C9, 02D8-02DD, 0384-038A, 038C, 038E-03A1, 03A3-03CE, 0401-040C, 040E-044F, 0451-045C, 045E-045F, 0490-0491, 1E80-1E85, 1EF2-1EF3, 2013-2015, 2017-201E, 2020-2022, 2026, 2030, 2032-2033, 2039-203A, 203C, 203E, 2044, 207F, 20A3-20A4, 20A7, 20AC, 2105, 2113, 2116, 2122, 2126, 212E, 215B-215E, 2190-2195, 21A8, 2202, 2206, 220F, 2211-2212, 2215, 2219-221A, 221E-221F, 2229, 222B, 2248, 2260-2261, 2264-2265, 2302, 2310, 2320-2321, 2500, 2502, 250C, 2510, 2514, 2518, 251C, 2524, 252C, 2534, 253C, 2550-256C, 2580, 2584, 2588, 258C, 2590-2593, 25A0-25A1, 25AA-25AC, 25B2, 25BA, 25BC, 25C4, 25CA-25CB, 25CF, 25D8-25D9, 25E6, 263A-263C, 2640, 2642, 2660, 2663, 2665-2666, 266A-266B, F001-F002, FB01-FB02.
I independently got this list from the spec
* 0020-007E, 00A0-017F, 0192, 01FA-01FF, 02C6-02C7, 02C9, 02D8-02DD, 0384-038A, 038C, 038E-03A1, 03A3-03CE, 0401-040C, 040E-044F, 0451-045C, 045E-045F, 0490-0491, 1E80-1E85, 1EF2-1EF3, 2013-2015, 2017-201E, 2020-2022, 2026, 2030, 2032-2033, 2039-203A, 203C, 203E, 2044, 207F, 20A3-20A4, 20A7, 20AC, 2105, 2113, 2116, 2122, 2126, 212E, 215B-215E, 2190-2195, 21A8, 2202, 2206, 220F, 2211-2212, 2215, 2219-221A, 221E-221F, 2229, 222B, 2248, 2260-2261, 2264-2265, 2302, 2310, 2320-2321, 2500, 2502, 250C, 2510, 2514, 2518, 251C, 2524, 252C, 2534, 253C, 2550-256C, 2580, 2584, 2588, 258C, 2590-2593, 25A0-25A1, 25AA-25AC, 25B2, 25BA, 25BC, 25C4, 25CA-25CB, 25CF, 25D8-25D9, 25E6, 263A-263C, 2640, 2642, 2660, 2663, 2665-2666, 266A-266B, F001-F002, FB01-FB02.
—Random832 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon note 

message: The lead section states that some Unicode characters may be missing from Linux, but is that even relevant to mention since Linux is not a Microsoft operating system in the first place? AadaamS (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: The article says that two private use characters are defined, but what are they defined as? Viewing this article on an iPhone doesn't display them. 12.218.76.10 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If your browser or system does not provide definitions for them, then there are none. That is UNICODE-intentional. Just follow the link Private Use Area in the article to get an in-depth explanation why that is so. --176.2.72.183 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually meant what WGL4 defined them as. I found it though. :-D It actually defines them as extra copies of the 'fi' and 'fl' ligatures, presumably for supporting legacy applications that had used those locations before the fb01/fb02 locations were defined.   2602:306:37BB:C490:F0F2:D946:158F:B171 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Use chars? 

message: Does anyone know when does WGL4 date from?  The earliest I've found is 1997 as part of 1.0 OpenType specification, but I suspect the list is older than that. -KiloByte (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication date 

message: Glyphs are not characters, characters are not glyphs, and I am giving up on attempting to make this article reflect this extremely well-sourced truth. 
A glyph is a visual representation of one or more characters. A character may be represented by more than one glyph, and a glyph may represent more than one character. In the early days of computing both terms were often used used interchangeably, particularly on systems that had one glyph per character.
I am unwatching this page. Enjoy your inaccurate article, and have fun counting characters. Some of you have certain worked hard to keep it inaccurate. You can reply to this comment if you wish, but I will not see the reply. Please don't ping me. I do not want to have anything to do with this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am unwatching this page