- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:24:56 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Monday, October 20, 2003, 7:58:52 PM, Henri wrote: HS> On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 20:12 Europe/Helsinki, Tex Texin wrote: >> If a browser supports Unicode, then all that may be needed to display >> the >> script is the font. >> >> There seems to be an assumption that displaying minority scripts must >> require a >> concerted effort and a specialized system. >> It doesn't need to be the case. Certainly some scripts are complex to >> display. >> Others are in the minority not because they are technologically >> difficult but >> because there are not many speakers. HS> For example, Mac OS X doesn't come bundled with a font for Georgian, HS> but will render Georgian text (encoded as Unicode) if a font is HS> supplied. Georgian is a good example, its easy to render. HS> If a person wants to read Georgian and runs Mac OS X, why HS> wouldn't (s)he install a suitable font instead of relying on Web sites HS> to provide fonts via @font-face? Conversely, why should they see all pages in the same font and why should pages have to guess a list of font family names that happen to cover Georgian? HS> Surely it is reasonable to expect HS> (s)he wants to read Georgian even when the site author isn't providing HS> a font Sure HS> or when the text being read isn't a Web page. Sure I don't see why they should have to use the same font for everything, however. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 15:25:21 UTC