Re: Unicode fonts on Debian

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > Jungshik Shin wrote: > > > It's impossible to infer the document encoding from 'lang' tag. > > Indeed, yes, I presented the URL inserted by jmaiorana to the W3C > HTML validator and it could not make any sense out of it. Still, > when I set Mozilla

Re: GB18030

Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > What was wrong > with UTF-8 one wonders (rhetorical question, donÂt really want to > know the answer because it is probably very complicated). UTF-8 is upward compatible with ASCII, but the Chinese government wanted something that is upward compatible with GB2312, and t

Re: Unicode fonts on Debian

Jungshik Shin wrote: > It's impossible to infer the document encoding from 'lang' tag. Indeed, yes, I presented the URL inserted by jmaiorana to the W3C HTML validator and it could not make any sense out of it. Still, when I set Mozilla to 'autodetect Japanese' it correctly found it to be shift-j

Re: Unicode fonts on Debian

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Eric Streit wrote: > I have a "small" question ... > > The pages are perfectly rendered on the screen, but when it comes to > printing, only one encoding is done and all the other glyphs are > converted to "missing-caracters". > Why not Mozilla ? That's partly because Mozilla

Re: Unicode fonts on Debian

Hi, Jungshik Shin a Ãcrit : On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ThatÂs a funny one, indeed. When I opened it in Mozilla it was displayed as åæäåæååå.For a moment I thought it was Chinese (which I do not

Re: Unicode fonts on Debian

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > ThatÂs a funny one, indeed. When I opened it in Mozilla it was > displayed as åæäåæååå.For a moment I thought it > was Chinese (which I do not know) but it is gibberish. Moz