> While this may be true, I also find the number of times that one would
have
> such a database which was:
>
> a) multilingual
> b) cross-script
> c) plain text (versus RTF which would allow lanuage tagging)
> d) no language tagging of any sort to mark script type per row level entry
> e) mix of (a) and (b) within a single column
> f) none of the scripts in question can be handled by [Uniscribe-ish] font
> linking in Access
> g) none of the scripts are helped by Access's own font fallback
>
> is not exceedingly common, at all. Chris Pratley's recomendation stands
most
> of the time, just in terms of real-world usage.
>
>
> MichKa
In the small world of linguistics however, such texts are the rule rather
than the exception, that is, those of us who venture outside the realm of
English... : )
Měcheal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 18 2001 - 09:07:46 EDT