I also would like an alternative set of character encodings so that I
could display underscores and caret characters for non-code
environments.  This would be useful for say, displaying filenames in
directories.

--Joe Blask.

> As we find ourselves adding new fonts to Squeak (in part for
> aesthetic reasons, in part for licensing purposes), we are running
> into issues related to the fact that each font encodes "special
> glyphs" differently, and some fonts don't have these special glyphs
> at all.  It would be a good idea if we could adopt a standard
> encoding for Squeak Fonts, so to aid those converting new fonts for
> Squeak.
>
> Squeak typically wants to have "straight line" single and double
> quotes, the underbar replaced with the assignment glyph, the caret
> replaced with the return glyph and so forth.  In TimesRoman, the
> original characters were "tucked into" an empty space in the font
> glyphs array.
>
> As an aside, I'd really prefer if Squeak displayed "SOMETHING" to
> indicate that a non-printing character was struck.  Many times I have
> accidentally typed a control character or the like, which didn't
> display but was present in a string or symbol.  If outside of a
> literal, you simply get a confusing syntax error, but it does damning
> things elsewhere.  This could be accomplished simply by adding a
> "marker" character, leaving no empty spaces in the glyphs Form.
>
> At any rate, it would be nice if we could settle on precisely what
> glyphs Squeak expects to have, and where, where we will or should
> "tuck away" the substituted glyphs for the Squeak-Unique symbols, and
> determine whether its a good idea to have "invisible" typable
> characters, or to fix it with a glyph (or some other means to display
> the same).  Once we settled on a "standard" encoding, presumably
> derived from a standard "standard" encoding of some sort, we can
> start building tools to facilitate the efforts of those importing
> Squeak fonts.