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


_______________________________________________
dm-l mailing list
dm-l@uleth.ca
http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l

-- 
------------------------------------
Notis Toufexis
Wiss. Mitarbeiter
Universitaet Hamburg
SFB Mehrsprachigkeit
Teilprojekt H4
Max-Brauer-Allee 60
22765 Hamburg

Tel. +40 - 40 - 42838 6431
Fax +40 - 40 - 42838 6116

http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/SFB538/
http://www.toufexis.de
http://www.neograeca.org

mailto:toufexis@multilingua.uni-hamburg.de
--------------------------------------