Re: Problematic glyphs in HTML output

Hall=C3=B6chen!

[email protected] (Karl Berry) writes:

>     Very most browsers can digest &#....; for giving an arbitrary
>     Unicode.
>
> Maybe they can digest &#, but can they give reasonable output from
> it?

Well, not all, and not for all glyphs.  However, I suppose people
reading those languages will use browsers that can display them.

> In particular, what does lynx do when you give the Unicode for dotless
> i, etc.?

I doesn't do too badly.

> Can you make a test document and send it to the list, and whoever
> is interested can try it in their favorite browser(s), so we can
> get a reality check?

Here you are:
http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/torsten.bronger/glyphtest.html

The dotless j seems to be unavailable in Unicode, but maybe I was
just blind.

As for the arrows, the IE has problems at least under Win2k, I don't
know the situation with XP.  This may suggest that it's better to
leave this as is.

However, the diacritical characters should be replaced, for the
reason stated above, but also because even the sub-optimal form with
the diacritical sign *next* to the glyph is better than the ASCII
version in my opinion.


The problem remains that it should be fixed for XML definitely.

Tsch=C3=B6,
Torsten.

--=20
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus

_______________________________________________
Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/
[email protected]
http://ff0.org/mailman/listinfo/texinfo-pretest