Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)

• Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 01:42 +0100 2002-04-25, Michael Everson wrote:

>On http://jshin.net/i18n/utftest/bom_utf16be.utf16.html under OS X
>you don't see just question marks, though -- you see the Last Resort
>font showing that Korean characters not present in the font are in
>the text. Awesome.

In OmniWeb at least. (Forgot to mention it.) OmniWeb does a very nice
job on
http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso15924/document/scriptbib.html by
the way (I know I have to edit the Arabic still, and no, Omniweb
doesn't order it properly in RTL though it does try to apply shaping
behaviour.)

-- 
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com

• Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:40:13 EDT