| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:38:31 -0700 |
| 2 |
"Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>> 2. Character encodings are easy: use Unicode. :) |
| 5 |
>> http://www.unicode.org/charts/symbols.html |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yes they're easy. My question is about whether they have any effect |
| 8 |
> on use of Symbol So far I see no evidence of it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
They shouldn't, since such fonts' glyphs aren't aligned with any |
| 11 |
encoding afaik - it'd be rubbish, at best. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> It works in MS Works, Dreamweaver and on Gentoo, in OpenOffice. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, it also works for me, if I change 'Symbol' to 'Luxi Mono', for |
| 17 |
example, which is a valid font name on my system. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Since handling of such stuff as font-family is defined by browser, it's |
| 20 |
at best unwise to rely on 'Symbol' font definition, and, while IE6 is |
| 21 |
still around, even more so. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You can use any decent font-rendering library to make |
| 24 |
browser-independent representation of such stuff, which is probably the |
| 25 |
only solution if you care whether end-user can see it or not. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net |
Archives