Hi all,
My preference would be for alternative XSL renderings; one would produce a pure Unicode text for those with adequate fonts, and an alternative transformation would identify characters not covered by any of the fonts commonly distributed with most OSes, and either substitute something at least usable (such as a plain s for historical long s, allowing readability) or some sign such as [s], with an explanation of its signification at the beginning of the text.
Cheers, Martin
At 02:49 AM 24/06/2004, you wrote:
So what is best? Obviously encoding your webpages as (say) UTF-8 is a good start. Force user to download a font for your site with appropriate glyphs? Use images of the glyphs instead of actual characters(*shudder*)? Transliterate into ascii characters/editorial marks? Use markup to allow easy replacement of different solutions on the fly?
I have my own preferences but am interested in what other people have done.
______________________________________ Martin Holmes University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre mholmes@uvic.ca martin@mholmes.com mholmes@halfbakedsoftware.com http://www.mholmes.com http://web.uvic.ca/hcmc/ http://www.halfbakedsoftware.com