On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>On 09/26/2002 10:46:42 PM Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >>>For me, this is the crux: that browsers have not implimented the css
> >>>:lang selector.
> > As I wrote in my respo
Title: Re: script or block detection needed for Unicode fonts
John Jenkins wrote:
"This just seems wildly inefficient to me, but then I'm coming
from anOS where this isn't done. The app doesn't keep track of
whether or nota particular font can draw a particular character; that's
h
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
> This just seems wildly inefficient to me, but then I'm coming from an
> OS where this isn't done.
As a cross-platform app, Mozilla can't count on very much from the platform.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
"Mr. Lane, if you e
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> But should there not be some (possibly user-overridable) relationship
> between an NLS or similar tag (e.g. "lang" in HTML or xml:lang) and one of
> these so that a browser or word-processing app that knows what "language"
> (e.g. what RFC 3066 tag) is applied to the
Peter Constable wrote,
> >Once the font specs for all this are set and fonts are released with
> >the necessary coverage and the shaping engines can access all of this,
> >the browsers are sure to quickly add support, too.
>
> I'm not quite as optimistic in terms of how close we are to having a
On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 03:19 PM, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 01:19:58PM -0700, Murray Sargent wrote:
>> Michael Everson said:
>>> I don't understand why a particular bit has to be set in
>>> some table. Why can't the OS just accept what's in the font?
>>
>> The ma
6 matches
Mail list logo
