Zoeken in Support

Vermijd ondersteuningsscams. We zullen u nooit vragen een telefoonnummer te bellen, er een sms naar te sturen of persoonlijke gegevens te delen. Meld verdachte activiteit met de optie ‘Misbruik melden’.

Learn More

Deze conversatie is gearchiveerd. Stel een nieuwe vraag als u hulp nodig hebt.

incorrect display of unicode character

more options

In microsoft office 365 online version of "word", I created a document with a bulleted list. The top-level bullet is displayed as a box with the F0B7 hex code:  (not sure what will be displayed in this forum). I see this is on RHEL 7 with Firefox 60.4.0esr and Ubuntu 18 with Firefox 64.0. I installed the microsoft Symbol font and this character shows up correctly in other applications such as EMACS and Gnome Terminal. How can I trouble-shoot this? Thanks, Allen

In microsoft office 365 online version of "word", I created a document with a bulleted list. The top-level bullet is displayed as a box with the F0B7 hex code:  (not sure what will be displayed in this forum). I see this is on RHEL 7 with Firefox 60.4.0esr and Ubuntu 18 with Firefox 64.0. I installed the microsoft Symbol font and this character shows up correctly in other applications such as EMACS and Gnome Terminal. How can I trouble-shoot this? Thanks, Allen

Alle antwoorden (4)

more options

I'm pretty sure that Firefox doesn't support chars from the Private Use Area (U+E000–U+F8FF). Under the Unicode definition, for this char there's no representative glyph provided, and character semantics are left to private agreement.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas

more options

Hmm, I don't think we found a solution in last year's thread on this problem, but you can check out what we looked at: https://support.mozilla.org/questions/1227507

more options

Thanks TyDraniu and jscher2000. I searched the forum before I posted; I guess my searching skills are too weak. Sorry for wasting your time.

Is it worthwhile reporting this as a bug?

more options

Hi allenbarnett, I imagine there is a bug on file, but maybe not? I agree the search here is weak because it is difficult to filter out the numerous other font issues to focus on this one.