Re: Encourage new browser or use ASCII?
| From: | Muke Tever <hotblack@...> | 
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:17 | 
|---|
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:20:22 -0400, Ben Poplawski
<thebassplayer@...> wrote:
> On my site, 
http://benpop.cgweb.us/, the language menu
> 
http://benpop.cgweb.us/lang/, I make extensive use of Unicode. Someone
> requested an ASCII-friendly page, and I suggested he get a new browser.
>
> Is this asking too much, having persons get an up-to-date-browser? I tend
> toward David Peterson's idea on it: use only Unicode, hoping the user
> gets a hint and upgrades so s/he can see it.
>
> It's not that hard to get a good browser, either. Firefox
> (
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/) is an excellent one,
> compatible with W3C (
http://w3.org/) and Unicode, free, and availablefor
> many platforms--Win, Mac, Linux.
> And then again, using Unicode extensively is a real pain in the ***,
> having to write &#x00E7; or whatever a lot.
Maybe this is a hint that you should get an up-to-date text editor ;) and
code your pages in UTF-8. Even Windows Notepad can do that these days.
> So, ideas? Should I accommodate non-Unicode browsers or go with my
> present pure Unicode setup?
It can't hurt to be accommodating. On Wiktionary everything that people
are liable to be unable to read appears with transliterations, IPA being
transliterated to (X-)SAMPA.  On my own sites I prefer Unicode, but some
of my older stuff doesnt, from before I discovered the joys of IMEs and MS
Keyboard Layout Creator.
I would suggest also letting the user's browser choose fonts for Unicode
text, or at least making sure the stylesheet recommends fonts that contain
the characters you intend to use; browser font substitution can be an ugly
thing.
	*Muke!
--
http://frath.net/  (my website)
http://kohath.livejournal.com/
http://kohath.deviantart.com/
http://wiki.frath.net/ (conlangs and concultures)