Re: Transcriptions of "Unicode"

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 01:41:48 EST

FWIW, IE does not do an absolutely stellar job here, either. Not all Unicode
subranges have fonts automatically assigned, yet it is smart enough if you
bring up the font dialog that lists the fonts which cover the subrange.

Although there was no "lame" button when I pulled up the dialog, selected
Ethiopic, saw two fonts listed but IE did not select either, there SHOULD
have been one. Because it was awfully lame..... smart enough to know a font
is needed, smart enough to list the ones that would work, but stupid to just
select one? :-(

I am hoping they address this is in IE 6.0. No one should ever need this
dialog unless they want to override choices. :-)


a new book on internationalization in VB at

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik van der Poel" <>
To: "Unicode List" <>
Cc: "Unicode List" <>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Transcriptions of "Unicode"

> Mark Davis wrote:
> >
> > What wasn't clear from his message
> > is whether Mozilla picks a reasonable font if the language is not there.
> Sorry about the lack of clarity. When there is no LANG attribute in the
> element (or in a parent element), Mozilla uses the document's charset as
> a fallback. Mozilla has font preferences for each language group. The
> language groups have been set up to have a one-to-one correspondence
> with charsets (roughly). E.g. iso-8859-1 -> Western, shift_jis -> ja.
> When the charset is a Unicode-based one (e.g. UTF-8), then Mozilla uses
> the language group that contains the user's locale's language.
> In other words, Mozilla does not (yet) use the Unicode character codes
> to select fonts. We may do this in the future.
> Erik

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT