From: "akerbeltz.alba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > While this may be true, I also find the number of times that one would > have > > such a database which was: > > > > a) multilingual > > b) cross-script > > c) plain text (versus RTF which would allow lanuage tagging) > > d) no language tagging of any sort to mark script type per row level entry > > e) mix of (a) and (b) within a single column > > f) none of the scripts in question can be handled by [Uniscribe-ish] font > > linking in Access > > g) none of the scripts are helped by Access's own font fallback > > > > is not exceedingly common, at all. Chris Pratley's recomendation stands > most > > of the time, just in terms of real-world usage. > > > > > > MichKa > > In the small world of linguistics however, such texts are the rule rather > than the exception, that is, those of us who venture outside the realm of > English... : )
All the more reason to pay attention to (c) and consider RICH text so that you can specify fonts. To take an extreme example: Asmus and the whole Unicode Standard publication would be lost if they attempted to store the information in completely plain text with no meta-information, preceisly because it is important to have the information to make intelligent font selection when not all scripts are currently covered by any specific vendor terchnology! MichKa Michael Kaplan Trigeminal Software, Inc. http://www.trigeminal.com/
