Hello Jernej, On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:07:50 +0100 GMT (22/Dec/09, 23:07 PM +0700 GMT), Jernej Simončič wrote:
>> Improperly assumed, you mean. If it's changed, it's wrong. JS> No. If the font doesn't have an Unicode table, it's assumed to be JS> CP1252 Why? I'm sure you can point me to something. JS> (I previously wrote ASCII, which was wrong). Changing your mind? JS> Nobody should be using such fonts with the assumption that anybody JS> else will be able to see the same thing. Unicode has some dingbats JS> standarized, and these characters will display properly regardless JS> of the target system, as long as the computer has an appropriate JS> font installed (this is a fairly safe assumption on modern JS> computers). ☂ I agree with the font, just not with the charset assumption. >> Well, the same people that made IE also made Windows. Just a thought >> of what is to be considered "proper" in this environment. JS> You're assuming the wrong environment, which is in this case Internet. This is becoming too philosophical. I just learned from a fan of Al Gore's that he never said he invented the internet... Where should this lead, I ask you? -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.13.8 ALPHA under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 4.2.13.8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
