Dear Doug, All, > BTW, your "Unicode test page" is marked: > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" > content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
This is of course redundant as this is the HTTP default. The heading 'Unicode' means the logical content, not the encoding. The Tamil content is given as hex NCRs. > while your TSCII test page is marked "x-user-defined". As the legacy Tamil charsets are not IANA registered, Tamil users typically have a TSCII font set up for the display of "x-user-defined"pages. > I'm not sure > what either of those declarations accomplishes. Hope, I could clarify this. > [..] Display engines > need to do a better job of applying style to individual reordrant > glyphs, that's all. I fully agree with this, Do you know any display engine which is capable of this? > > > It's hard to promote Unicode, when things that have worked in the > > past, stop working. > > This is alarmist and unnecessary. This is born out of sheer frustration. I was arguing for weeks on some mailing lists, that programmatic conversion to Unicode is easy and no features are lost. Now a very simple point I forgot to think about hit me. Regards, Peter Jacobi -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
