|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 11/19/42 11:35
Jake wrote :
> Let's just assume, just for once, that the OP knows what he's doing.
(...)
> WEFT-generated fonts work just fine with IE users; very practical, no
> problems.
It can lead to problems as Alan F. made me realized that I had created a
webfont from a font (nunacom font) which had no support for Unicode. The
thing is that such webfont may work for creating synthetic webfont in
MSIE 5+ but then, the Mozilla/Opera/Firefox/Safari user who may have
installed a truly Unicode font (like code2000) may not be able to read
the document despite using a unicode-capable font: this is very wrong.
This become illogical, inconsequent, incoherent.
See these screenshots:
http://www.gtalbot.org/GRAPHICS/PNG/LegislativeAssmNunavut_1.png
http://www.gtalbot.org/GRAPHICS/PNG/LegislativeAssmNunavut_2.png
http://www.gtalbot.org/GRAPHICS/PNG/LegislativeAssmNunavut_3.png
"Prosyl.ttf, which can be downloaded at
http://www.gov.nu.ca/Nunavut/English/font/
and nunacom.ttf (downloadable at nunatsiaq.com) are good examples of a
bad fonts to download and to install."
My recommendation to Microsoft:
include a true, complete Unicode font in their next os release and have
one which can be downloaded for free from windowsupdate.com so that none
of this could happen again. If this was done, I wouldn't see the need
and the justification for webfonts. If this was done, I would then most
likely be able to read, say, Inuktitut text in all kinds of browsers,
even/including with Lynx 2.8.5.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|