From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 12:09:49 CST
Erik van der Poel wrote,
> In theory, the text should be displayed no matter what fonts are
> specified in the style sheets. If I recall correctly, the CSS spec says
> that the browser should try the fonts listed in the property in the
> order found there, and may then fall back to other fonts in the system.
> Of course, this means that the browser must check each font to see which
> Unicodes can be displayed. In practice, some of the browsers and fonts
> have bugs...
Indeed, with the CSS font *family* declaration, pages specifying
Arial Unicode MS get displayed on my system using Arial, apparently
because the browser considers Arial and A.U.MS. to be in the same
family. And, rightly so. But, my default browser (MSIE 6.0 on Win XP
SP 1) doesn't check each font for coverage, as far as I can tell it
just uses whichever font (family) it finds first in the preference
list. It's kind of a "pet peeve" of mine that I have fonts installed
here which display practically everything, yet often encounter those
horrid little missing glyph squares when surfing the web.
Fortunately, BabelPad exists, and I can simply copy/paste such text
> > (... recently added Ethiopic script translations... )
> Which browser? Are any of those 4.1 characters on the Web somewhere?
> What font are you referring to?
The MSIE 6.0. Maybe I should see if there's an update. The page
displays with Code2000 for all of the less-than-4.1 characters and
seems to use Arial's missing glyph for all of the Ethiopic 4.1
characters. The latest release of Code2000 includes the 4.1
Ethiopic extensions, although there's certainly room for improvement
in the font's Ethiopic glyphs. When I open these Ethiopic page
sources in Notepad, all of the text displays properly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 12:10:28 CST