- From: by way of Martin Duerst <jshin@mailaps.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:00:17 +0900
- To: www-international@w3.org
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote: > Jungshik Shin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote: > > > > > Yes, OS and browsers are getting better. My concerns center around: > > > Is the mechanism for selecting fallback fonts language-sensitive, so > > > that it would favor a Japanese font for Unicode Han characters that were > > > tagged as lang:ja > > > > I'm a little at loss as to why you have the impression > > that 'lang' tag has little effect on rendering of html (in > > UTF-8. e.g. your page or IUC10 announcement page which used to be at > > http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc10/x-utf8.html) by major browsers. MS > > IE has been making use of 'lang' attribute(html) for a long time and > > Mozilla solved the problem (although 'xml:lang' is not yet supported) > > last December. In case of Mozilla(and Netscape 7), see > I am glad to see the issue has been given some attention. > I concluded there was a problem after experimenting with some CJK > characters that I repeated with different lang tags and could not get > any display differences unless I used non-Unicode fonts assigned to each > language. I did this with IE 6 and NS 7 and Opera (dont recall if it was > 6 or 7.) Actually, you might have had hard time telling the display difference depending on what characters you used for your testing EVEN IF you configured browsers to use different (but with __very similar__ design principles and look/feels) Unicode-cmapped (but NON-pan-script) fonts for TC,SC, J and K *under MS Windows*. This difficulty demonstrates that CJK Unification in Unicode/10646 is not such a big problem as some people tried to make it. Jungshik
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 05:43:17 UTC