Re: Updated Compelling Unicode Demo

Hi, I used Netscape 6.2 and the Hebrew and Arabic look ok to me. Can you tell me what you believe to be wrong? Maybe send me a screenshot and identify the problem areas? tex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In Netscape 6, the demo apparently does not support > appropriate directionality for Hebrew

Re: Updated Compelling Unicode Demo

In Netscape 6, the demo apparently does not support appropriate directionality for Hebrew and Arabic characters. Please check this out. Also, when will we have a stylesheet code for tategaki? They should not use "ideographic" in the name for tategaki, as tategaki is used often without ideographs

Dead links in an i18n example

I think these links are dead. (e.g. < http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/i18n/2001-October/002526.html>, > or < http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/i18n/2001-November/002639.html> -- ___ Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com Powered by Out

Re: Rush request for help!

I agree with Jungshik that U+76F4 (straight) is possibly the case where unification went farthest in the sense that it's the case where average modern readers in various areas might be most (1) confused if they see the glyph variant they are not used to. (1) 'most confused' should not be misunder

Updated Compelling Unicode Demo

I have updated: http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/unicode-example.html Persian and Yiddish have been added and Armenian has changed. I had a request to add the appropriate "lang" to each cell, to improve display by user agents. I have added what I think is appropriate for each entry. I would be

"Onna" (woman) kanji

In that big long list of characters than have different glyphs in Chinese and Japanese, the character "onna" (woman) was listed as one of them. I will not name the codepoint because surely you know which one I mean. How is this? Also, a couple of digits (I think 7 and 8) were listed as having di