On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway.
OK, I'd like to hear some opinions. A lot of the pages I produce need, for technical reasons, a Unicode font (especially the 0370–03FF, 0400–04FF, 0500–052F, 1F00–1FFF, and 2000–206F ranges). I find 'Arial Unicode MS' very handy for this. Plus, it is a sans-serif style which is generally regarded as superior to a serif font for screen reading. A typical CSS entry for me is: font-family:'Arial Unicode MS','Everson Mono Unicode', 'Palatino Linotype',Code2000,'TITUS Cyberbit Basic','Athena Roman', Athena; (I know I don't have a generic, but that's because there really isn't a suitable generic.) So my questions are: what is wrong with Arial (Arial Unicode MS in particular)? are there better font alternatives? (I generally provide links for downloading these fonts because there is not a reliable means of providing fonts to web users.) I would very much appreciate suggestions. -- T. R. Valentine Use a decent browser: Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera (Avoid IE like the plague it is) N�ŠÇ.²È¨žX¬µú+†Ûiÿü nËZ�Ö«vÈ+¢êh®Òyèm¶ŸÿÁæ쵩Ýj·l‚º.¦Šàþf¢—ø.‰×¥Šw¬qùŸ¢»(™èbžÛ(žš,¶)උazX¬¶¶)à…éi
