On 07/27/2012 03:36 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
On 27/07/12 23:19, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
Greg Hellings writes:
I've found that GNOME tends to use a very excellent coverage font by
default for its UI elements. However, WebKitGTK might be defaulting to
a different font for display that doesn't
On 27/07/12 23:19, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> Greg Hellings writes:
>> I've found that GNOME tends to use a very excellent coverage font by
>> default for its UI elements. However, WebKitGTK might be defaulting to
>> a different font for display that doesn't include those characters
>
> Well, the w
Greg Hellings writes:
> I've found that GNOME tends to use a very excellent coverage font by
> default for its UI elements. However, WebKitGTK might be defaulting to
> a different font for display that doesn't include those characters
Well, the whole point is ... it displays correctly already. O
For me, on Windows, that text renders as missing character squares. It
probably uses an uncommon range that either the WebKitGTK widget is
handling differently (different font?) from the standard widget. I've
found that GNOME tends to use a very excellent coverage font by
default for its UI element
I was just doing some updates to Xiphos' languages file, from this...
http://crosswire.org/wiki/Localized_Language_Names
...which was referenced from the "choosing an app" page.
When I add this entry to the file...
cop Ⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ
...it works in principle, and Xiphos displays
David Haslam writes:
> I have both KJV v2.3 (main) and KJV v2.4 (beta) installed
> successfully, by means of Xiphos.
Well... from your description, "by means of Xiphos" is a considerable
stretch, in that you edited configurations outside Xiphos.
> To do that I first moved the one from beta & ren
I am pleased to announce the first release of a marked-up version of
Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon, v. 0.1.
This release includes pages iii-3 and words occurring 1,000 times or
more in the Greek NT. Obviously there is much still to do
(contributors are welcome
Hi Chris,
I know about that one - yet in principle, when it becomes available, we
should obtain from the most authentic source, which is the Bible Society
here in England.
I think that Michael's text is essentially VPL with no added features.
Studge and his colleagues may be in a position to sup
On 07/27/2012 01:04 AM, David Haslam wrote:
There was such a collision in my experience.
Our friend who maintains the IBT repo uses the name RV for the Russian
Synodal Version.
(don't worry - I've already told him about this minor issue)
This clashes with the standard abbreviation for the Engli
There was such a collision in my experience.
Our friend who maintains the IBT repo uses the name RV for the Russian
Synodal Version.
(don't worry - I've already told him about this minor issue)
This clashes with the standard abbreviation for the English Revised Version
of 1885.
I've made an RV mo
Karl,
There's no need to depend on your "memory" to know which is which.
I have both KJV v2.3 (main) and KJV v2.4 (beta) installed successfully, by
means of Xiphos.
To do that I first moved the one from beta & renamed it as KJV24,
by editing the first two lines in the conf file to match the ne
11 matches
Mail list logo
