From: Peter Jacobi (peter_jacobi@gmx.net)
Date: Sun Dec 07 2003 - 08:43:15 EST
Hi Jungshik, All,
> [..] Anyway, he
> should have used 'lang' tag to help browsers pick up fonts. In two
> pages above, simply adding 'lang="ta"' to <table ....> would suffice.
But I assume (and tested), that language tagging doesn't help
Mozilla in rendering the 'styled' example.
And, unfortunately, language tagging the TSCII version interferes with
the font hack to correctly display TSCII pages. If you want to able to see
TSCII and Unicode Tamil pages, Mozilla's font setup must associate a
Tamil Unicode font with 'Tamil' and a Tamil TSCII font with 'User Defined'.
There is some mixup of lang and encoding tagging, which I didn't fully
understand.
> > This is browser behavior, not word processor behavior, and certainly not
> > an inherent defect in the Unicode logical-order model. Display engines
> > need to do a better job of applying style to individual reordrant
> > glyphs, that's all.
>
> You're right. Anyway, this is an interesting challege to
> layout/rendering engines.
Then you consider
<span style='color:#00f'>ல</span>ொ
to be valid input, which ideally should render as intended?
From a processing point of view, it is somehwat challenging,
as you may have to parse through lots of markup, until
you know what to do with the 0BB2.
As I've understood from other posts, the font support for
all this is theoretically available, but not often done in practice.
Regards,
Peter Jacobi
-- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 07 2003 - 09:52:48 EST