Am 1999-12-06 um 9:57 h hat email@example.com geschrieben:
> In the meantime, Web developers need to be aware of the "standard" level of
> support (which means code page support, for example, on Windows) in order
> to get the result that they expect. And realize that while NCRs may encode
> the data in a lossless manner, the end user will probably see a question
> mark, underscore or black block at display time.
> Someone might argue that characters that you can't display are probably as
> meaningful as displaying characters the user can't read... but in most
> cases I find that users read that your page is "broken" somehow.
For a character that cannot be displayed due to lack in the locallly
available script support, browsers (and btw. any other program) should
display the pertinent glyph from a Last Resort font, such as discussed
in <http://fonts.apple.com/LastResort/LastResort.html>, rather than a
question mark, or a rectangle.
This would give the user an indication of what is missing, locally;
it would avoid the impression that the page is "broken" somehow.
Anyway, if the user cannot read a particular script, the pertinent
last-resort glyph would be as meaningful to him as the original character
(which cannot be displayed locally), in most cases -- the exception
being that the page contains a discussion of particular characters.
As an additional goody, the implementor could provide a context-menu to
download, or install, the missing script support.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT