Skip to content

Fix #5267#5508

Closed
vrdhn wants to merge 2 commits into
nvaccess:masterfrom
nvda-india:in_t5267
Closed

Fix #5267#5508
vrdhn wants to merge 2 commits into
nvaccess:masterfrom
nvda-india:in_t5267

Conversation

@vrdhn

@vrdhn vrdhn commented Nov 18, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This patch reads out commonly auto-converted bullet types in Word.
It converts these symbol from PUA to Unicode, and adds these to symbols.dic

@jcsteh

jcsteh commented Nov 18, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like you have to reference it in the comment, rather than the summary. So, this is for #5267.

@dkager

dkager commented Jan 18, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Alternative solution: instead of replacing the PUA symbols with other Unicode symbols, we could replace them with the ASCII characters you type to get them. E.g. =>, <>, etc.
Advantage is that they are more likely to appear in the user's braille table.

@dkager

dkager commented Jan 21, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This looks like a good resource for mapping from the Wingdings font Word uses for some bullets to standard Unicode. Remove the 0xF0 prefix from the PUA codes and look them up in the table. Unfortunately, this doesn't quite match what is done in the PR. I will discuss it also with sighted users.

@dkager

dkager commented Jan 22, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In Word you can also Save As --> Plain text --> UTF-8. This way Word transforms PUA codes into Unicode, although the result is not unambiguous. E.g. U+F0B7 and U+F0A8 are both transformed into U+2022 (bullet). Still, in my opinion it is a good idea to do what Word itself does.

The only problem is that you can no longer identify each individual list level, because some will share the same bullet symbol. But this is already a problem if you make a list with more than 3 levels, because then the bullets start repeating.

@dkager

dkager commented Aug 6, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing this because #6778 supercedes it. This provided a valuable basis for the other PR, but I don't think we will be merging this one as-is. However, please reopen if I am overlooking something.

@dkager dkager closed this Aug 6, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants