Daniel wrote:
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Unicode, etc, are "Other Fonts", aren't they??
No. Unicode is not a font, it's an encoding. And for each encoding you
can select which fonts to use.
O.K., so are you suggesting I could use "Times New Roman" as a Unicode
font or I could use "Times New Roman" as a Western(1831 or whatever) font??
You can choose a font for any combination of encoding ("Fonts for" list)
and Typeface, whether it makes sense or not. You could even choose the
same font for each and every combination (I think; didn't check whether
SM restricts e.g. Monospace options to fonts that actually are monospaced).
If that is the case, what advantage would there be in using, for
example, Unicode Times new Roman compared to using Western(1831 or
whatever) Times new Roman??
Ideally you don't have different kinds of fonts for different encodings,
so you'd only have one Times New Roman and that font would include all
characters for all encodings, including Unicode. So let's assume Times
New Roman did include all characters (I didn't check whether it does).
In that case you could assign Times New Roman under both Western and
Unicode / Typeface Serif. Then, if the displayed website or email
specified a Western or Unicode encoding, Times New Roman would be used
if the typeface Serif would be requested. Unless of course there was an
override, like "use Arial here" (using CSS rules or similar).
HTH
Jens
--
Jens Hatlak <http://jens.hatlak.de/>
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker <http://smtt.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
