From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 11:28:51 EST
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>>> Well Outlook 2000 is unable to represent any e with ogonek and trema
>>> of your example. So, despite they are canonically equivalent, they
>>> are rendered differently:
>>
>> Everything rendered perfectly over here, on Windows 95 and Outlook
>> Express 5 (and Uniscribe). You might try switching to Lucida Sans
>> Unicode, if you have it.
>
> I have Lucida Sans Unicode with Office. But there's a difference
> between Outlook (2000) and Windows XP's Outlook Express 6 here,
> despite they are supposed to share the same UniScribe engine (or may
> be there's a parallel version of Uniscribe used only in Office 2000
> (updated with Office Update separately from Windows), and not updated
> along Outlook Express (within Windows Update)...
Well, it's not the first time Outlook and Outlook Express have been
known to do the same thing in a different way.
But my point, and Michael's more tersely worded version ("Get a better
browser"), still apply. Even if a given display engine and/or font
render e+ogonek+diaeresis differently from e+diaeresis+ogonek, or cannot
render one or both at all, they are still canonically equivalent in
Unicode. The responsibility for fixing the problem and displaying
things correctly lies with the display engine and/or font, not the
author of the text and not Unicode.
This also applies (in spades) to the notion of creating í by putting an
acute accent over a dotless i, but I suspect that horse has been beaten
to death as well.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 12:21:33 EST