Re: Right way to quote
On Sat, Aug 16, Tina Holmboe inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> I'll try another question then. Does using a character from Unicode
> versus one from ISO-8859-* or even ASCII give a higher or lower
> probability of said character (a) not being presented to the user,
> (b) being presented to the user as a place-holding glyph, or (c) presented
> to the user as an entirely different character ?
>
> From the rest of your answer it would seem that "Higher" would be right.[/color]
I'd go along with "somewhat higher", and refer you to what I said at
Or to put it another way: sometimes your material may call
specifically for an extended character repertoire (say, Hebrew and
Greek together in a page on biblical studies) and then you just have
to require your readers to use a capable browser, and WebTV wouldn't
stand a chance. But when that kind of specialised requirement isn't
there, I'd say it's rather pointless to put your otherwise-
straightforward documents at risk by insisting on too many
typographical niceties.
But then, on the other hand if you are a typographer, or your work is
of a kind where typographic details are substantive to the content,
you'd obviously reach a different conclusion.
On Sat, Aug 16, Tina Holmboe inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> I'll try another question then. Does using a character from Unicode
> versus one from ISO-8859-* or even ASCII give a higher or lower
> probability of said character (a) not being presented to the user,
> (b) being presented to the user as a place-holding glyph, or (c) presented
> to the user as an entirely different character ?
>
> From the rest of your answer it would seem that "Higher" would be right.[/color]
I'd go along with "somewhat higher", and refer you to what I said at
Or to put it another way: sometimes your material may call
specifically for an extended character repertoire (say, Hebrew and
Greek together in a page on biblical studies) and then you just have
to require your readers to use a capable browser, and WebTV wouldn't
stand a chance. But when that kind of specialised requirement isn't
there, I'd say it's rather pointless to put your otherwise-
straightforward documents at risk by insisting on too many
typographical niceties.
But then, on the other hand if you are a typographer, or your work is
of a kind where typographic details are substantive to the content,
you'd obviously reach a different conclusion.
Comment