Gary P. Grosso had written:
I sometimes wonder if XML or some other standard will evolve toward
some standard use of markup to denote different languages.
Mark Davis wrote:
XML (and HTML) already give you the capability of marking language. Look at
xml:lang. If you are using XML, you should
Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
right would require using different fonts for each. To have different
fonts for the same characters in a single document would seem to
require use and
At 01:43 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Gary P. Grosso wrote:
Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
right would require using different fonts for each. To have different
fonts for the same characters in a
From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 01:02 PM
At 01:43 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Gary P. Grosso wrote:
Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
right
I appreciate these responses. I am certainly not an expert in Han
unification. I am trying to reconcile what John says with what
appears at http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html. For example,
there appear to be stylistic differences, at least, in a character
such as:
At 03:43 PM 10/9/01 -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Oooh - a swing and a miss!
No -- a pretty complete misunderstanding of my posting on your part.
The implication of my statements is that rich text support is required at
least at some level of your architecture as soon as you want to go
6 matches
Mail list logo
