𝼀𝼁𝼂𝼃𝼄 seem to work with both Firefox and Thunderbird but the rest (e.g. 𝼎𝼨 )
don't.
I think the cautions in the draft are quite appropriate.
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian Carpenter
On 22-May-26 17:08, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2026, at 02:49, Pete Resnick wrote:
[1] Perhaps your browser will do something better with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Extended-G that will make it look
more like https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1DF00.pdf, but on the most
updated version of MacOS with the latest versions of Safari and Firefox,
I can't see them.
I know that this is likely going to be seen as buck-passing, but this is not a browser
problem. Whether this shows glyphs or substitutes depends on whether you have fonts with
those glyphs available. And by "available", this either means that the OS has
those glyphs present [*] or whether Wikipedia decides to ship a webfont with those glyphs.
The latter is pretty challenging for Wikipedia, as they need to provide a
system that works for arbitrary user-generated text across all their pages, but
there are efforts in browser-land that will hopefully make it easier.
As for the OS and my [*] caveat: browsers can only pass glyphs that are widely
available, lest we reveal a fingerprint. So it's possible that, even if you
have a font package that has the necessary glyphs present on your OS, the
browser won't use it to protect your privacy.
As far as the RFC presentation goes, webfonts are a pretty workable way to deal
with this.
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
