From: CE Whitehead (cewcathar@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2010 - 20:40:23 CDT
Hi Vincent, all!
(For the record, I use IE8 but not quite the same version as you;
I prefer to keep my actual computer info a little private -- not that it is private of course; all pages that write cookies know it all --
I've agone into my Regional and Language Options and installed files for complex script and left-to-right languages and have set the default font to a unicode font;
I've installed almost all updates for IE8 [mainly all security updates; I still need to install one that will prevent display of fixed tables in compatibility mode but this is unrelated to the display issue were are talking about];
as for Windows, I still have some updates that I've heard of some problems with that I have not installed -- I've installed most -- but the ones I have not installed do not change the display issues in question.)
As for business, I am assuming that the document you sent is normally rendered in quirks mode anyway --
because of the absence of a document type declaration. (Correct me if this is not right.)
However, that did not mess up my display and really should not so much affect the rendering of characters I do not think
(correct me if I am wrong; I think the doc type declaration permits css style codes, xml features, etc.)
However what font are you using as your default?
Individual fonts may have display bugs:
http://home.tiscali.nl/t876506/UnicodeDisplay.html
Oherwise I do not know what to tell you.
I am not sure if there is a problem with the vendor in this case thus -- though maybe there is for your browser version. There may be a problem with the vendor in other instances (I have some bidi issues with ie8; I think I should be able to use a dir attribute but am still having to use lro and rlo characters).
As for the motion at Unicode to add the invisible character to the list of rejected characters, it seems that the motion was rejected.
So where does that leave Michael Everson et. al's proposal? Apparently as a proposal without sufficient support; however the character proposed is still not a rejected character as far as I can tell. (Again, correct me if I am wrong.)
I don't have a passcode so I cannot see any details myself.
Sorry -- I cannot help here.
Best,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 28 2010 - 20:46:23 CDT