- From: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:27:49 -0400
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- cc: www International <www-international@w3.org>
--On Saturday, September 14, 2013 23:23 -0400 John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > John C Klensin scripsit: > >> Just an amusing reminder that the assumption of the universal >> availability of even popular fonts and rendering mechanisms is >> by no means assured... > > That's mild. Consider these handwritten samples: > > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7woCaXfP5nU/RqExOf6FfoI/AAAAAAAAACw/ > i_ee_2-zI3A/s1600-h/name.jpg > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Letter_to_Russia > _with_krokozyabry.jpg Indeed. I've seen worse, lots worse, too, even machine-generated ones (and have a small collection). As I keep telling my IDN colleagues, if two strings cannot be represented or rendered even nearly adequately, then they are likely to be seen as confusingly similar regardless of the underlying code points. The one I sent just happened to strike me in the right way and at the right time. thanks, john
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 04:28:15 UTC