Re : unicode Digest V10 #102

From: Azzedine Ait Khelifa (aaitkhelifa@yahoo.fr)
Date: Tue May 26 2009 - 15:46:17 CDT

  • Next message: Shawn Steele: "RE: Klingon anti-virus"

    Hello all,

    Many Thanks for all your answers.

    Forcing font is not a good solution.

    How can we (~ 25 000 000 -30 000 000 peoples) use Tifinaghes on Facebook, Twitter, webmail, blog services ??????

    Can we say "it's a bug of IE, Chrome ..." ? In this case Can we hope, microsoft, google etc will correct this bug in next version ?

    Or it's definitively NOT ?

    Best regards,

    AAK

    --- En date de : Mar 26.5.09, Ecartis <ecartis@unicode.org> a écrit :

    De: Ecartis <ecartis@unicode.org>
    Objet: unicode Digest V10 #102
    À: "unicode digest users" <ecartis@unicode.org>
    Date: Mardi 26 Mai 2009, 14h53

    unicode Digest    Mon, 25 May 2009    Volume: 10  Issue: 102

    In This Issue:
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Assessment of proposals (derives from Re: Klingon anti-virus
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
            Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:37:13 -0600

    Azzedine Ait Khelifa wrote:

    > It's a font problem ?
    >
    > In this case, Why it's working fine with Firefox and it's not with
    > Internet Explorer ?

    Read Jukka's reply again.  IE and Firefox use different mechanisms to
    figure out which font to use.  In the case of Tifinagh at least,
    Firefox's mechanism works better than IE's.

    --
    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    http://www.ewellic.org
    http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
    ------------------------------
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 02:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
    From: wjgo_10009@btinternet.com
    Subject: Assessment of proposals (derives from Re: Klingon anti-virus)
    On Sunday 24 May 2009, vunzndi@vfemail.net <vunzndi@vfemail.net> wrote:
    > At the end of the day when and who makes a proposal can
    > sometimes make a difference to acceptance or rejection, not
    > less because proposals from certain bodies implies wide
    > usage, and all human instutuitions change with time . Aswell
    > one should note that a rejected proposal has to make up a
    > lot of lost ground.
    > 
    > John Knightley
    Something that I have wondered for a long time and not yet been able to find out is how the United Kingdom is represented on the ISO 10646 committee and any subcommittees thereof.
    Does anyone know please?
    William Overington
    25 May 2009
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:37:42 +1000
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
    2009/5/26 Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
    > Azzedine Ait Khelifa wrote:
    >
    >  It's a font problem ?
    >>
    >> In this case, Why it's working fine with Firefox and it's not with
    >> Internet Explorer ?
    >>
    >
    > Read Jukka's reply again.  IE and Firefox use different mechanisms to
    > figure out which font to use.  In the case of Tifinagh at least, Firefox's
    > mechanism works better than IE's.
    >
    depends on your point of view. Firefox's approach is fairly haphazard, and
    can result in very ugly ransom note effects.
    My understanding is that
    For IE:
    a) Tifinagh is not supported by mlang.dll, so you can not set a user
    preferred default font for Tifinagh.
    b) Tifinagh is not supported by Windows, so no OS level font linking is
    available for IE to use.
    Although might be posisble to edit windows registry to set a default font
    for Tifinagh. An approach i had to take with some other scripts.
    Both of these are relevant in the Tifinagh case.
    For Firefox:
    a) the user can not set a default font for Tifinagh.
    b) Firefox uses an internal mechanism for selecting an appropraite font. Any
    one knows how this is done? As far as I can tell the process for the end
    user will result in a random font being used. I.e. there is no control at
    all for what font will be used.
    Ultimately, i think that web developers shoudl take responsibility for
    creating well crafted stylesheets that carter for the langauges needed to eb
    supported.
    Although Wikipedia tends to be a fringe case, they atttempt to be font
    neutral, relying on mediawiki user defined styles, or browser/OS default
    font display mechansims.
    Which doesn't tedn to work for lesser used langauges.
    > --
    > Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    > http://www.ewellic.org
    > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
    >
    >
    >
    -- 
    Andrew Cunningham
    Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
    State Library of Victoria
    Australia
    andrewc@vicnet.net.au
    lang.support@gmail.com
    ------------------------------
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:01:45 -0400
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
    On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Cunningham
    <lang.support@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Ultimately, i think that web developers shoudl take responsibility for
    > creating well crafted stylesheets that carter for the langauges needed to eb
    > supported.
    That's horrible. Anyone should be able to put up a working web page on
    the web without having a stylesheet at all, much less one that
    requires intimate knowledge of a half dozen browsers across three
    major operating systems. Ultimately, the web-browser needs to handle
    it right no matter what language.
    -- 
    Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:45:04 +1000
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
    2009/5/26 David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
    >
    >
    > That's horrible. Anyone should be able to put up a working web page on
    > the web without having a stylesheet at all, much less one that
    > requires intimate knowledge of a half dozen browsers across three
    > major operating systems.
    I'm not saying that web developers should have  "intimate knowledge of a
    half dozen browsers across three major operating systems."
    I'm saying that web developers should have knowledge of web typography as it
    applies to the languages they work with.
    -- 
    Andrew Cunningham
    Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
    State Library of Victoria
    Australia
    andrewc@vicnet.net.au
    lang.support@gmail.com
    ------------------------------
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:18:16 -0400
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
    On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Andrew Cunningham
    <lang.support@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I'm not saying that web developers should have  "intimate knowledge of a
    > half dozen browsers across three major operating systems."
    Then what are you asking? If you're telling me that you need to
    hardcode fonts that may or may not work depending on browser, that's
    exactly the result you get.
    > I'm saying that web developers should have knowledge of web typography as it
    > applies to the languages they work with.
    And I'm saying that <html><body><h1>Hi!</h1> <p>This is my home
    page!</p></body></html> should work no matter what language it's in.
    Just because some companies can afford teams of web designers to build
    massive all-dancing all-singing pages, doesn't mean we should force
    everyone who wants to put a page on the Web to have the time and
    knowledge to deal with that.
    Furthermore, from my perspective as a volunteer for Project Gutenberg,
    one of the great concerns about HTML is whether anything will be able
    to make sense of it a few years down the road. Forcing everyone to
    embed font names, fonts that will probably be rare in ten or twenty
    years, does nothing to help that, especially if the attitude is that
    the web browser can produce garbage if none of the listed fonts are
    found.
    -- 
    Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
    ------------------------------
    From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:33:20 -0600
    Andrew Cunningham wrote:
    >> Read Jukka's reply again.  IE and Firefox use different mechanisms to 
    >> figure out which font to use.  In the case of Tifinagh at least, 
    >> Firefox's mechanism works better than IE's.
    >
    > depends on your point of view. Firefox's approach is fairly haphazard, 
    > and can result in very ugly ransom note effects.
    It does in some other cases, but *in the case of Tifinagh*, the choice 
    is between seeing Tifinagh letters and seeing boxes.  Try feeding the 
    HTML below to both browsers.  Note the absence of CSS and other 
    "typography" hints.  (Disclaimer: I have Code2000 installed.)
    <html><head><title>Tifinagh</title></head><body><p>
    &#x2D35;&nbsp;&#x2D36;&nbsp;&#x2D37;&nbsp;&#x2D38;&nbsp;&#x2D39;
    </p></body></html>
    I'm not a Firefox zealot, and definitely don't want to get involved in 
    Browser Wars.  I'm just seeing what I'm seeing.
    --
    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    http://www.ewellic.org
    http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:10:51 +0700
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: "Damon Anderson" <damon@corigo.com>
    I'm late to this conversation but opened the html file below in:
    1. Safari - boxes
    2. IE 8 - boxes
    3. Opera 9.x and 10 alpha - boxes
    4. Chrome - boxes
    5. Firefox - characters
    6. OpenOffice - boxes
    I would have to say Firefox is the clear winner in this case. Something is  
    definately better than nothing... and I hate Firefox.
    -Damon
    P.S. Long live Opera.
    On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:33:20 +0700, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
    > Andrew Cunningham wrote:
    >
    >>> Read Jukka's reply again.  IE and Firefox use different mechanisms to  
    >>> figure out which font to use.  In the case of Tifinagh at least,  
    >>> Firefox's mechanism works better than IE's.
    >>
    >> depends on your point of view. Firefox's approach is fairly haphazard,  
    >> and can result in very ugly ransom note effects.
    >
    > It does in some other cases, but *in the case of Tifinagh*, the choice  
    > is between seeing Tifinagh letters and seeing boxes.  Try feeding the  
    > HTML below to both browsers.  Note the absence of CSS and other  
    > "typography" hints.  (Disclaimer: I have Code2000 installed.)
    >
    > <html><head><title>Tifinagh</title></head><body><p>
    > &#x2D35;&nbsp;&#x2D36;&nbsp;&#x2D37;&nbsp;&#x2D38;&nbsp;&#x2D39;
    > </p></body></html>
    >
    > I'm not a Firefox zealot, and definitely don't want to get involved in  
    > Browser Wars.  I'm just seeing what I'm seeing.
    >
    > --
    > Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    > http://www.ewellic.org
    > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
    >
    >
    -- 
    Damon Anderson, Business Director
    Mobile: +84 90 834-2421
    Email: damon@corigo.com
    Corigo Vietnam
    391B Ly Thuong Kiet Street
    Ward 9, Tan Binh District
    Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
    http://www.corigo.com
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:38:55 +1000
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
    2009/5/26 Damon Anderson <damon@corigo.com>
    > I'm late to this conversation but opened the html file below in:
    >
    > 1. Safari - boxes
    > 2. IE 8 - boxes
    > 3. Opera 9.x and 10 alpha - boxes
    > 4. Chrome - boxes
    > 5. Firefox - characters
    > 6. OpenOffice - boxes
    >
    > I would have to say Firefox is the clear winner in this case. Something is
    > definately better than nothing... and I hate Firefox.
    >
    although Tifinagh is a fairly straight forward case. Burmese would be more
    interesting case. If a page doesn't reference particular fonts, Firefox will
    select a font for you. But the question is which font does it select, how
    does it determine appropriate fonts, and will the text actually be legible
    with the chosen font.
    E.g. you have a Bumrese webpage without font declarations, it is Unicode 5.1
    text. You have the following fonts on your system: Myanmar1, Myanmar3 and
    Zawgyi. Which will Firefox use? What are the chances that you can actually
    read the page?
    Browsers should allow users to set default fonts. But that isn't currently
    possible in all scripts across most browsers (if any)..
    -- 
    Andrew Cunningham
    Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
    State Library of Victoria
    Australia
    andrewc@vicnet.net.au
    lang.support@gmail.com
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:00:57 +0100
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>
    2009/5/26 Damon Anderson <damon@corigo.com>:
    >
    > 2. IE 8 - boxes
    Boxes. Nothing you can do about it other than applying a custom
    sylesheet from the "Accessibility" tab.
    > 4. Chrome - boxes
    Boxes initially, but displayed OK when I changed the default font
    setting to use Code2000.
    > 5. Firefox - characters
    [Firefox 3.0.5]
    Boxes initially, but displayed OK when I changed the default font
    setting to use Code2000.
    > I would have to say Firefox is the clear winner in this case. Something is
    > definately better than nothing... and I hate Firefox.
    I hate Firefox too. In this case Firefox and Chrome are equal first
    (and I possibly hate Chrome even more than I hate Firefox). IE could
    so easily be the winner if only Microsoft would update the Font
    settings dialog to cover all the Unicode scripts that have been added
    since Unicode 3.0 (like charmap it's stuck in a time warp), fix the
    broken font mappings (Myanmar and Mongolian) and add a default font
    setting.
    Andrew
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:34:08 +0100
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    From: Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>
    2009/5/26 Marion Gunn <mgunn@egt.ie>:
    >
    > As a member of both the Irish translation team of IE (paid) and the Irish
    > translation team of Firefox (unpaid) - I have to step in to counter Andrew's
    > hatred of the latter
    You can't counter hatred. The fact that I dislike Firefox says
    absolutely nothing about the technical merits or otherwise of that
    particular browser.
    Andrew
    ------------------------------
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:31:48 +0200
    From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@in-nomine.org>
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    -On [20090526 03:05], Andrew Cunningham (lang.support@gmail.com) wrote:
    >Ultimately, i think that web developers shoudl take responsibility for
    >creating well crafted stylesheets that carter for the langauges needed to
    >eb supported.
    Why stylesheets? They're only for style. Use the lang="" and/or xml:lang=""
    attributes for proper demarcation of specific languages.
    -- 
    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
    イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
    http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
    Asleep is the Rose, in tired innocence dreaming Time away...
    ------------------------------
    From: Tom <applemeister@f2s.com>
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer
    Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:50:37 +0100
    On 26 May 2009, at 07:10, Damon Anderson wrote:
    > 1. Safari - boxes
    What version are you using? I opened the file using Safari 3.2.3 on my  
    MacBook and the characters rendered correctly.
    I guess I must also be the only person who uses Camino (though not  
    actively), since it wasn't featured in the list. Anyway, for  
    interested parties, the Tifinagh characters display correctly under  
    Camino 1.6.6.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Apple a day keeps Microsoft away
    Second Lt. Applemeister of the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army
    ------------------------------
    End of unicode Digest V10 #102
    ******************************
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 26 2009 - 15:49:20 CDT