On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 09:35, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Colin Viebrock wrote:
I really think the best solution (not perfect, but best) is to specify
some fonts so the pages look nice, and hard code in the ISO-8859-1 font
hard code in the ISO-8859-1 font means assuming ISO 8859-1 and
use ISO
At 01:40 02.11.2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 09:35, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Colin Viebrock wrote:
I really think the best solution (not perfect, but best) is to specify
some fonts so the pages look nice, and hard code in the ISO-8859-1 font
hard code in the ISO-8859-1 font
Hi,
Although I have no font problem differently to yasuo, (Actually I have got
Arial Unicode MT) but I've experienced character encoding problem since
your recent patch on ext/standard/info.c.
How come you concluded that part is unnecesary?
I really think the best solution (not perfect,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Colin Viebrock wrote:
This is getting a little more complicated than I think is necessary.
There are two issues here, I think:
a) Fonts. Some people didn't like Arial, so I reverted to letter the
browser decide. Some people didn't like that,
On 10/09/02, Yasuo Ohgaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK, there is no Arial that includes CJK.
Arial Unicode MS (that 22MB TTF you'll find in \windows\fonts) seems
to do a good job of including virtually all characters known to man.
BTW: Colin - there is a bug report about phpinfo() - you are
At 08:34 9-10-2002, Derick Rethans wrote:
For once I agree with yasuo here :) phpinfo() doesn't need to look
pretty, it's for _debug_ output.
Which means it needs to be as clear as possible. Formatting it for readibility
is a plus - you don't want output that's hard to read, as you're already
Wez Furlong wrote:
On 10/09/02, Yasuo Ohgaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK, there is no Arial that includes CJK.
Arial Unicode MS (that 22MB TTF you'll find in \windows\fonts) seems
to do a good job of including virtually all characters known to man.
Hmm...
I don't have it under my
Log:
don't define fonts ... use the browser defaults
Reason being?
Yasuo Ohgaki's post earlier today said:
First problem, CSS should not contain specific font
name. Otherwise, characters may be broken under some
browsers when font does not have type faces needed.
Although, to be
At 00:28 9-10-2002, Colin Viebrock wrote:
Log:
don't define fonts ... use the browser defaults
Reason being?
Yasuo Ohgaki's post earlier today said:
First problem, CSS should not contain specific font
name. Otherwise, characters may be broken under some
browsers when font
Colin Viebrock wrote:
I'm waiting to hear a response from him on this issue, which might
affect my changes to the css page.
You forgot to disable automatic char to entities conversion
e.g. Followings cannot be Japanese text obviously
Ccedil;macr; 9middot;icirc; 9AElig;uuml;
Colin Viebrock wrote:
Yasuo Ohgaki's post earlier today said:
First problem, CSS should not contain specific font
name. Otherwise, characters may be broken under some
browsers when font does not have type faces needed.
Although, to be honest, I think his problem is more with the character
This is getting a little more complicated than I think is necessary.
There are two issues here, I think:
a) Fonts. Some people didn't like Arial, so I reverted to letter the
browser decide. Some people didn't like that, and they'd like the font
specifications back in.
I'm going to add the
Colin Viebrock wrote:
This is getting a little more complicated than I think is necessary.
There are two issues here, I think:
a) Fonts. Some people didn't like Arial, so I reverted to letter the
browser decide. Some people didn't like that, and they'd like the font
specifications back
a) Fonts. Some people didn't like Arial, so I reverted to letter the
browser decide. Some people didn't like that, and they'd like the font
specifications back in.
This will simply break output under some browser.
It's more important to show info, but show a little nicely on some
Colin Viebrock wrote:
a) Fonts. Some people didn't like Arial, so I reverted to letter the
browser decide. Some people didn't like that, and they'd like the font
specifications back in.
This will simply break output under some browser.
It's more important to show info, but show a little nicely
Yes and No. It works withh my browser, but I just happen to know
some browsers do not like it. Let's be more conservative.
I'd rather have a nice looking page that works on 99% of the browsers,
than a not-so-nice looking one that works on 100%.
Okay ... so don't output the charset meta tag
16 matches
Mail list logo
