|
|
Posted by Animesh K on 09/19/07 20:30
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Animesh K:
>
>>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>>
>>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts.
>
> Your wording is odd, since you confuse fonts with characters or glyphs
> and diacritics with letters containing them, but you are basically
> right: Trebuchet MS lacks glyphs for some of the characters used on the
> page, such as n with dot above. Therefore, browsers either display a
> symbol denoting an unrepresentable character or pick up a character from
> another font. (A clever browser could construct a representation, by
> decomposing a character into a base character and a combining diacritic
> mark. This would be quite in accordance with the Unicode standard, but
> it's probably high above the heads of browser designers, even though it
> would be almost trivial to implement.)
You made my thoughts precise. I am not a font-expert, so I don't know
the various terms related to it.
FF on windows is a clever browser by your definition. Same is true for
Opera.
I wonder why FF on Mac screws it up (as Dorayme reported).
>
>> And here the same text displays fine in IE 6.0 with Tahoma
>>
>> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>
> Maybe it does, maybe it does not. On my computer, Tahoma contains n with
> dot above, so I see the text in one font. On someone else's computer,
> maybe not. Maybe their computer lacks Tahoma, or maybe their Tahoma is
> different. At least the page
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1e45/fontsupport.htm
> does not list Tahoma as one of the fonts supporting that character.
>
> The secondary font suggested on the page, Times, is among the worst
> possible choices. The Times font, where available (it's _not_ the same
> as Times New Roman!) tends to contain a very small set of characters. On
> my computer, for example, Times is a Type 1 font supporting little more
> than the Windows Latin 1 repertoire - e.g., even Latin 2 characters are
> missing.
>
> Moreover, Tahoma is basically condensed Verdana, suffering from the same
> problems as Verdana _and_ from the condensation problem (though in some
> situations, for some people, being condensed might be an asset). That
> is, Tahoma has the same basic shapes of characters but horizontally
> denser. You might try to approach this issue by using letter-spacing:
> 1px to make Tahoma less dense.
>
> So something like
> font-family: Arial Unicode MS, Tahoma, Code2000, Everson Mono Unicode
> would be better. (The letter-spacing idea is not good here, since CSS
> does not let you say "if Tahoma is used, then...", so any letter-spacing
> set would apply no matter which font is used.)
>
May be I should switch to Arial. To me, Tahoma is a nice read and it
resembles the sans-serif font of Latex closest. That's why I chose it in
the first place.
I will experiment more with these inputs, though. Thanks
Animesh
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|