On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:38:31 -0700 "Kevin O'Gorman" <kogor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. Character encodings are easy: use Unicode. :) >> http://www.unicode.org/charts/symbols.html > > Yes they're easy. My question is about whether they have any effect > on use of Symbol So far I see no evidence of it. They shouldn't, since such fonts' glyphs aren't aligned with any encoding afaik - it'd be rubbish, at best. > It works in MS Works, Dreamweaver and on Gentoo, in OpenOffice. Well, it also works for me, if I change 'Symbol' to 'Luxi Mono', for example, which is a valid font name on my system. Since handling of such stuff as font-family is defined by browser, it's at best unwise to rely on 'Symbol' font definition, and, while IE6 is still around, even more so. You can use any decent font-rendering library to make browser-independent representation of such stuff, which is probably the only solution if you care whether end-user can see it or not. -- Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
