Re: Character-distinguishing fonts


At 18:54 2/08/2008, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

>When I said that scripts should use fonts which accentuate the 
>differences between the scripts, then I had in mind the Address bar, 
>and perhaps other places in the browser - like "tool tips" - which 
>can display the current address.
>As much I know, there is no browser of today which allows us to 
>distinguish, per script, which font/fonts are used to display URLs.

In the browsers that I have, the font for the address bar is not 
defined by browser settings but in the operating system's display 
settings: on Windows XP, the font in the address bar in SeaMonkey, 
Firefox 2 and Opera 9 is determined by the font for "Message Box". 
The address bar of Internet Explorer 6 is not affected by this 
setting. And of course, you can only pick one font, not fonts per script.
The font for tooltips can be set separately and affects tooltips both 
in browser chrome and content, but nothing in SeaMonkey or Firefox 2.

Best regards,


>I don't think mixing severael scripts in one URL should look as if 
>it all belonged to one, big, uniform alphabet.
>There are of course many things that could be done other than using 
>fonts which accentuate the differences: differing colors or  styles 
>(italic/bold) for differing scripts (each user could use the "best" 
>colors for his most frequently used scripts - less used scripts 
>would then "cry out" in a different color etc). Or, the URL could be 
>shown black-on-white when it was a one script URL, but warn, through 
>color, if several scripts are used etc. And as for fonts, one could 
>use the "prettiest" font for the "normal" scripts (according to the 
>users preferences), and let uncommon scripts be shown in a more bold 
>or clumpsy script.
>This of course calls for a tighter adaptation to the users 
>preferences - on par with the "preferred language" preferences.
>Of course, I agree with Frank in that "[t]he price for total 
>security is IMO too high". And it is therefore I think that User 
>Agents should help users understand what they are seeing so they 
>themselves can judge and all these stupid IDN blockers could be disabled.
>Andrew Cunningham 2008-08-02 13.44:
>>Hi Martin
>>certain limitations with this approach. It requires a web browser to be
>>aware of fonts per script. Firefox had severe limitations on setting
>>default fonts for various scripts.
>>IE on Windows is limited to scripts supported by mlang.dll. There are also
>>bugs in mlang.dll that prevent internet explorer identifying Myanmar and
>>Tibetan script fonts. Only way around that is by editing the relevant
>>registry settings.
>>On Sat, August 2, 2008 7:19 pm, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>>I think that in the major browsers and word processers,
>>>you can select the actual font per script. For example,
>>>in Opera, you can use Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced ->
>>>Fonts -> International Fonts...
>>>At 08:48 08/08/01, Jonathan Pool wrote:
>>>>>Should not use of fonts which clearly distinguish the
>>>>>different letters and scripts be adviced in these
>>>>At least while editing multiscript documents where all
>>>>characters might appear, I would be very happy to use a
>>>>set of fonts that visually distinguish all Unicode characters. 
>>>>That would include distinguishing 0061 from 0430,
>>>>02BC from 2019, 2130 from 05D0, 00F5 from 006F+0303, etc.
>leif halvard silli

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 12:58:23 UTC