Andrew McNabb wrote: > However, I think there's no longer any excuse for not being able to view > Unicode text. Even though I usually write "" instead of “”, I still > need to be able to read what other people write. And as you mention, if > there are no ASCII equivalents, it makes more sense to use the Unicode > characters.
It turns out I'm an old fogy and the main reason for disliking unicode characters in my e-mails is that I use an ancient font that's ISO-9660-1 (or is it ISO9660-1? sigh). When unicode characters come up, they are written using another font since the symbols are missing in this font. This makes “” look really weird. It's also not that the font couldn't handle other characters; it's just that making these other characters fit in the 8x16 bitmap box is a bit challenging. The font I use for all things e-mail, programming, and text-related is actually packaged in many linux distros as "Console8x16" or just "Console." It's actually the original IBM VGA bios screen font, which, on my 1680x1050 monitor is amazingly sharp and readable. I also use a near-desert-like color scheme in Thunderbird in displaying text. Funny. Does anyone know how to either convert pcf fonts to ttf for use on my Mac or make pcf fonts work in iTerm? > > So I guess the only thing I disagree with you on is "thank goodness it's > more difficult to use unicode!" Even if I don't want to use the Unicode > characters in some particular situation, it doesn't bother me if anyone > else uses it. This is true. Although I often can and do implement simple transformation filters to substitute ascii for things like quotes, emdashes, endashes, elipses, etc. -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
