Available here [1] on page 18, or just look for "1F44E". I found the twist really clever, and first thought the author had simply used a generic block. I didn'

Available here [1] on page 18, or just look for "1F44E". I found the twist really clever, and first thought the author had simply used a generic block. I didn't spend much time reading the cited document, but it looks like some existing glyphs may be merged with newer ones under certain conditions. What a mess... I feel Unicode has tried to compass way too many things (even italics!). Go figure... [1] http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11149-webdings.pdf http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11149-webdings.pdf