Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)

• Previous message: Jonathan Coxhead: "Re: Variations of UTF-16"
• In reply to: Tom Gewecke: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
• Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 14:14 -0700 2002-04-24, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>Following is result of Mac OS X and OmniWeb browser on
><http://jshin.net/i18n/utftest>

All hail OS X and OmniWeb!

On http://jshin.net/i18n/utftest/bom_utf16be.utf16.html under OS X
you don't see just question marks, though -- you see the Last Resort
font showing that Korean characters not present in the font are in
the text. Awesome.

-- 
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com

• Previous message: Jonathan Coxhead: "Re: Variations of UTF-16"
• In reply to: Tom Gewecke: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
• Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:32:33 EDT