> While this may be true, I also find the number of times that one would have > such a database which was: > > a) multilingual > b) cross-script > c) plain text (versus RTF which would allow lanuage tagging) > d) no language tagging of any sort to mark script type per row level entry > e) mix of (a) and (b) within a single column > f) none of the scripts in question can be handled by [Uniscribe-ish] font > linking in Access > g) none of the scripts are helped by Access's own font fallback > > is not exceedingly common, at all. Chris Pratley's recomendation stands most > of the time, just in terms of real-world usage. > > > MichKa
In the small world of linguistics however, such texts are the rule rather than the exception, that is, those of us who venture outside the realm of English... : ) M�cheal
