Ok here I go.
Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a "pt"?
I have has several talks about this with others and without stating my
opinion what would everyone here has to say is better?
Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to use in a document?
Mine is verdana
Thanks in advance.
Andrew S.
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Andrew S."
> Ok here I go.
>
> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a
> "pt"?
>
Points are for printed documents. You could put points into a print
stylesheet. Best not to specify a font size, let the user decide what
size is best - just put headings and legalese at appropriate
percentages.
> I have has several talks about this with others and without stating my
> opinion what would everyone here has to say is better?
>
> Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to use in a
> document?
I usually use font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif, and I might use
Times Roman for headings.
>
> Mine is verdana
Google for Problems with Verdana to see why you might want to change
that.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
HTH
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Scripsit Andrew S.:
> Ok here I go.
You do, don't you? Your message looks like trolling, because...
> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a
> "pt"?
.... this has been discussed dozens of times in this group, and you either
didn't check them or decided to ignore them. What makes us think you would
benefit any more from a repetition?
But to address the specific question you ask, apparently about font _size_
without saying that, the _correct_ answer is that neither "%" nor "pt" _can_
be used for setting font size _in HTML_.
> Mine is verdana
Yes, Verdana is a mine.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Andrew S. wrote:
> Ok here I go.
>
> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a
> "pt"?
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
> I have has several talks about this with others and without stating
> my opinion what would everyone here has to say is better?
C'mon. Let us know what they all said.
> Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to use in a
> document?
See above link.
> Mine is verdana
Ooh. See above link. And see the thousands of times this has been
discussed in these newsgroups.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Andrew S. wrote:
>
>> Ok here I go.
>>
>> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a
>> "pt"?
>
> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>
Actually IE 6.0 has has problems in displaying diacritics (characters
with a dot-below the alphabet) with "Trebuchet MS". I prefer Tahoma over
Trebuchet for that reason.
I would love to use Trebuchet MS on my webpage, if Uncle Gates insists
IE 6.0 to support the diacritics.
Animesh K wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Andrew S. wrote:
>>> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or
>>> a "pt"?
>>
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>
> Actually IE 6.0 has has problems in displaying diacritics (characters
> with a dot-below the alphabet) with "Trebuchet MS". I prefer Tahoma
> over Trebuchet for that reason.
Didn't know that, as I don't use diacritics in any of my pages.
> I would love to use Trebuchet MS on my webpage, if Uncle Gates
> insists IE 6.0 to support the diacritics.
Uncle Gates is long past working on IE6. :-) Page above duly updated
with your comment. Hope that's ok.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Hi Andrew,
Tuesday September 18 2007, Andrew S. writes to All:
> From: akidat47@verizon.net
> Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to
> use in a document?
Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
This is best, then you should be compatible with everything.
--
K Klement
Enhance your marketing at http://www.gypsy-designs.com
mailto:info@gypsy-designs.com
Gypsy Designs Fax: (403) 242-3221
.... For a good time, call (408) 555-1212.
Gufus wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Tuesday September 18 2007, Andrew S. writes to All:
>
>> From: akidat47@verizon.net
>> Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to
>> use in a document?
>
> Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
>
> This is best, then you should be compatible with everything.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
Don't cha just love it when everyone knows what's best?
G wrote:
> Don't cha just love it when everyone knows what's best?
Yep! According to Gufus' sig, this appears to be his web site:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/gufus.jpg
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Hi Beauregard,
Tuesday September 18 2007, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writes to All:
> From: a.nony.mous@example.invalid
> Yep! According to Gufus' sig, this appears to be his web
> site:
So?
--
K Klement
.... Tact is the unsaid part of what you're thinking.
Hi G,
Tuesday September 18 2007, G writes to Gufus:
> From: .@.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
> Don't cha just love it when everyone knows what's best?
Thanks.
> -+- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
> + Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
> (1:134/77.10)
--
K Klement
.... What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five cent bagel.
In article <1190129314@f2.n134.z1.fidonet.org>,
NOSPAM.STOP.gbbsg@shaw.ca (Gufus) wrote:
> Hi Beauregard,
>
> Tuesday September 18 2007, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writes to All:
>
> > From: a.nony.mous@example.invalid
> > Yep! According to Gufus' sig, this appears to be his web
> > site:
>
> So?
B is asleep at the moment, so allow me. I think he might have
meant that your site starts off with (dictates) unnaturally
small fonts and therefore hard to read as is. B does not think
you should be using Transitional doc type unless you are
transitionaling from something. And there are other things about
the heavy use of javascript that I dare not go into that he will
be raising an eyebrow about.
Honestly, Gufus, better let him sleep, because if he wakes
prematurely, I am getting out of here, sparks are a goin' to
fly...
--
dorayme
Gufus wrote:
>
> Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
>
> This is best, then you should be compatible with everything.
If you want to be compatible with everything, drop the first 3 choices
there. ;)
- Verdana has known problems, which others have commented on.
- Arial is just plain ugly - why choose an ugly font just because it's
common?
- Helvetica is highly variable, thus unpredictable. Compare URW to Adobe
Helvetica to see for yourself.
The generic sans-serif wins by a landslide. Or the generic serif if that
style goes better with the overall design.
Or here's a novel idea: leave the family out altogether and let your
visitors decide for themselves what font to use.
--
Berg
dorayme wrote:
> Honestly, Gufus, better let him sleep, because if he wakes
> prematurely, I am getting out of here, sparks are a goin' to
> fly...
background.
For some reason, Gufus' posts do not arrive in my newsreader. Yours come
in as a direct reply to mine. Doesn't seem to be anything in my killfile
that would affect his posts (which I found at GG).
Gufus said "So?"
Would I hire a web designer whose own site I could not read? :-)
That second paragraph on G's main page is .. well .. funny!
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Animesh K wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Andrew S. wrote:
>>>> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or
>>>> a "pt"?
>>> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>> Actually IE 6.0 has has problems in displaying diacritics (characters
>> with a dot-below the alphabet) with "Trebuchet MS". I prefer Tahoma
>> over Trebuchet for that reason.
>
> Didn't know that, as I don't use diacritics in any of my pages.
>
Link this for a proof:
http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
Best,
A
Animesh K wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Animesh K wrote:
>>
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> Andrew S. wrote:
>>>>> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or
>>>>> a "pt"?
>>>> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>>> Actually IE 6.0 has has problems in displaying diacritics (characters
>>> with a dot-below the alphabet) with "Trebuchet MS". I prefer Tahoma
>>> over Trebuchet for that reason.
>>
>> Didn't know that, as I don't use diacritics in any of my pages.
>>
>
> Link this for a proof:
>
> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>
> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>
> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>
> Best,
> A
And here the same text displays fine in IE 6.0 with Tahoma
http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
Hi Bergamot,
Tuesday September 18 2007, Bergamot writes to Gufus:
> From: bergamot@visi.com
> The generic sans-serif wins by a landslide. Or the generic
> serif if that style goes better with the overall design.
> Or here's a novel idea: leave the family out altogether and
> let your visitors decide for themselves what font to use.
Thanks for your input Berg. :)
Cheers from Calgary.
> -+- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
> + Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
> (1:134/77.10)
--
K Klement
.... You will be aided greatly by a person whom you thought to be unimportant.
Animesh K wrote:
>> Link this for a proof:
Thanks for those, but I think I would like to keep the focus of the page
on the font size issue. The only reason I listed font families there was
to show the absence of Verdana.
'Tis interesting, though. I'd never noticed, being an English-only
writer.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
In article
Animesh K
> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>
> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>
> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>
> Best,
In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
"posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
up to the job at all.
--
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> Honestly, Gufus, better let him sleep, because if he wakes
>> prematurely, I am getting out of here, sparks are a goin' to
>> fly...
>
>
> purple background.
>
> For some reason, Gufus' posts do not arrive in my newsreader.
> Yours come in as a direct reply to mine. Doesn't seem to be
> anything in my killfile that would affect his posts (which I
> found at GG).
Using a WeirdSoftware filter? :)
"SoupGate is an easy to setup gateway for Fidonet<->Internet for use
with a Soup mail client (which is included).
SoupGate supports both Binkley and ArcMail style outbounds."
Development seems to have pretty much stopped at the beta state in
2000.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <------------- New Site Aug 28
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> For some reason, Gufus' posts do not arrive in my newsreader.
>> Yours come in as a direct reply to mine. Doesn't seem to be
>> anything in my killfile that would affect his posts (which I
>> found at GG).
>
> Using a WeirdSoftware filter? :)
I just found the reason. !delete Header 64.59.135.176
...and Gufus' GG header: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.135.176
That's definitely a Shaw Cable IP address. Somewhere in the past,
someone from Shaw must have been flooding Usenet with drivel, and I
binned him.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> For some reason, Gufus' posts do not arrive in my newsreader.
>>> Yours come in as a direct reply to mine. Doesn't seem to be
>>> anything in my killfile that would affect his posts (which I
>>> found at GG).
>>
>> Using a WeirdSoftware filter? :)
>
>
>
> I just found the reason. !delete Header 64.59.135.176
>
> ..and Gufus' GG header: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.135.176
>
> That's definitely a Shaw Cable IP address. Somewhere in the past,
> someone from Shaw must have been flooding Usenet with drivel, and
> I binned him.
Nice to see someone else that knows "drivel". Like those with
problems with there/they're/their and your/you're, it seems like
most people using Usenet think it's "dribble".
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <------------- New Site Aug 28
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> That's definitely a Shaw Cable IP address. Somewhere in the past,
>> someone from Shaw must have been flooding Usenet with drivel, and I
>> binned him.
>
> Nice to see someone else that knows "drivel". Like those with
> problems with there/they're/their and your/you're, it seems like most
> people using Usenet think it's "dribble".
Sometimes I dribble, usually when reading drivel.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Scripsit Bergamot:
> Or here's a novel idea: leave the family out altogether and let your
> visitors decide for themselves what font to use.
In special cases, that idea might fire back. Suppose that you use characters
that do not commonly appear in fonts that are used as default fonts by
browsers. Say, the diameter sign (U+2300, occurring fairly often in
technical texts but seldom in fonts) or "h" with caron (U+021F, probably
used only in Romani (= gypsee) language as written in Finland) or the ezh
letter (U+0292, used as a phonetic symbol in IPA and as a letter in some
languages). If you don't set the font family at all in your CSS code (or in
HTML markup), _most_ users will just symbols of unrepresentable characters.
That's because they are using IE with Times New Roman as the default font.
On Firefox, the users will probably see all the characters, but many of them
will appear as picked up from fonts other than the rest. Such things happen
even in printed matter, for quite similar reasons. They can be a typographic
nightmare.
Surely they can fix the situation by changing the browser's default font. Do
they know how to do that? Will they do that? If they switch the font to,
say, Arial Unicode MS (assuming they have it), they will probably see all
the characters. But then they will have to switch it back to something else,
since otherwise _all_ pages that do not specify font family (and that means
a lot of pages that concentrate on presenting useful content) will appear in
that font, which is fairly dull - and has no real italics or real bold face.
(Does this matter? It does. Fake italics look real bad and even wrong for
many characters, e.g. "\" or Cyrillic letters.)
If, on the other hand, the author checks the character repertoire he uses
and writes down a font-family list containing fonts so that each of them has
all the characters needed, such as
body { font-family: Code2000, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode }
then most users will see all the characters properly. Perhaps not in the
best possible font, but you can't win them all.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Scripsit Animesh K:
>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>
>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts.
Your wording is odd, since you confuse fonts with characters or glyphs and
diacritics with letters containing them, but you are basically right:
Trebuchet MS lacks glyphs for some of the characters used on the page, such
as n with dot above. Therefore, browsers either display a symbol denoting an
unrepresentable character or pick up a character from another font. (A
clever browser could construct a representation, by decomposing a character
into a base character and a combining diacritic mark. This would be quite in
accordance with the Unicode standard, but it's probably high above the heads
of browser designers, even though it would be almost trivial to implement.)
> And here the same text displays fine in IE 6.0 with Tahoma
>
> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
Maybe it does, maybe it does not. On my computer, Tahoma contains n with dot
above, so I see the text in one font. On someone else's computer, maybe not.
Maybe their computer lacks Tahoma, or maybe their Tahoma is different. At
least the page
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1e45/fontsuppor t.htm
does not list Tahoma as one of the fonts supporting that character.
The secondary font suggested on the page, Times, is among the worst possible
choices. The Times font, where available (it's _not_ the same as Times New
Roman!) tends to contain a very small set of characters. On my computer, for
example, Times is a Type 1 font supporting little more than the Windows
Latin 1 repertoire - e.g., even Latin 2 characters are missing.
Moreover, Tahoma is basically condensed Verdana, suffering from the same
problems as Verdana _and_ from the condensation problem (though in some
situations, for some people, being condensed might be an asset). That is,
Tahoma has the same basic shapes of characters but horizontally denser. You
might try to approach this issue by using letter-spacing: 1px to make Tahoma
less dense.
So something like
font-family: Arial Unicode MS, Tahoma, Code2000, Everson Mono Unicode
would be better. (The letter-spacing idea is not good here, since CSS does
not let you say "if Tahoma is used, then...", so any letter-spacing set
would apply no matter which font is used.)
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
"Animesh K"
news:fcp6s2$18u6$2@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Andrew S. wrote:
>>
>>> Ok here I go.
>>> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a
>>> "pt"?
>>
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>>
>
> Actually IE 6.0 has has problems in displaying diacritics (characters with
> a dot-below the alphabet) with "Trebuchet MS". I prefer Tahoma over
> Trebuchet for that reason.
>
> I would love to use Trebuchet MS on my webpage, if Uncle Gates insists IE
> 6.0 to support the diacritics.
Internet Explorer. Problem? I shall write to Bill Gates immediately. He
must want to know!
+mrcakey
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Animesh K
>
>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>
>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>
>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
>> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>>
>> Best,
>
> In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
>
> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>
> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>
> Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
> up to the job at all.
>
Err I am aware of this issue on the Mac. It looks embarassing, yes. But,
I haven't looked into fixing it yet since: 1) I don't have a Mac
(neither do I wish to overpay for one), 2) My site-traffic comes mostly
from Windows/Linux computers.
I think I need to fiddle with fonts till I get it right (which is
somewhat hard at Blogger, since the CSS file isn't completely in my hand
-- I need to look for a method to hack it).
Thanks though,
Animesh
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Animesh K:
>
>>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>>
>>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts.
>
> Your wording is odd, since you confuse fonts with characters or glyphs
> and diacritics with letters containing them, but you are basically
> right: Trebuchet MS lacks glyphs for some of the characters used on the
> page, such as n with dot above. Therefore, browsers either display a
> symbol denoting an unrepresentable character or pick up a character from
> another font. (A clever browser could construct a representation, by
> decomposing a character into a base character and a combining diacritic
> mark. This would be quite in accordance with the Unicode standard, but
> it's probably high above the heads of browser designers, even though it
> would be almost trivial to implement.)
You made my thoughts precise. I am not a font-expert, so I don't know
the various terms related to it.
FF on windows is a clever browser by your definition. Same is true for
Opera.
I wonder why FF on Mac screws it up (as Dorayme reported).
>
>> And here the same text displays fine in IE 6.0 with Tahoma
>>
>> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>
> Maybe it does, maybe it does not. On my computer, Tahoma contains n with
> dot above, so I see the text in one font. On someone else's computer,
> maybe not. Maybe their computer lacks Tahoma, or maybe their Tahoma is
> different. At least the page
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1e45/fontsuppor t.htm
> does not list Tahoma as one of the fonts supporting that character.
>
> The secondary font suggested on the page, Times, is among the worst
> possible choices. The Times font, where available (it's _not_ the same
> as Times New Roman!) tends to contain a very small set of characters. On
> my computer, for example, Times is a Type 1 font supporting little more
> than the Windows Latin 1 repertoire - e.g., even Latin 2 characters are
> missing.
>
> Moreover, Tahoma is basically condensed Verdana, suffering from the same
> problems as Verdana _and_ from the condensation problem (though in some
> situations, for some people, being condensed might be an asset). That
> is, Tahoma has the same basic shapes of characters but horizontally
> denser. You might try to approach this issue by using letter-spacing:
> 1px to make Tahoma less dense.
>
> So something like
> font-family: Arial Unicode MS, Tahoma, Code2000, Everson Mono Unicode
> would be better. (The letter-spacing idea is not good here, since CSS
> does not let you say "if Tahoma is used, then...", so any letter-spacing
> set would apply no matter which font is used.)
>
May be I should switch to Arial. To me, Tahoma is a nice read and it
resembles the sans-serif font of Latex closest. That's why I chose it in
the first place.
I will experiment more with these inputs, though. Thanks
Animesh
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Animesh K
>
>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>
>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>
>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
>> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>>
>> Best,
>
> In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
>
> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>
> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>
> Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
> up to the job at all.
>
How does the page at Stutimandal renders? Do you see boxes here too?
http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
I did use a screenshot generating service, and that seemed to work on
many browsers.
Best regards,
Animesh
Scripsit Animesh K:
> FF on windows is a clever browser by your definition. Same is true for
> Opera.
No, my "definition" said: "A clever browser could construct a
representation, by decomposing a character into a base character and a
combining diacritic mark." I don't think any browser does that. It would
mean that when a browser sees, say, n with dot above as a single precomposed
character and finds out that it hasn't got a glyph for it, it decomposes it
into plain n (which it has got) and combining dot above (which it might
have).
What FF and Opera do is that they pick up the precomposed character from
another font. Just what IE 7 does in this case, but probably using a
different replacement font. (Sorry, I'm too tired to check now.)
> May be I should switch to Arial.
Hardly. Arial is much more limited than Arial Unicode MS.
> To me, Tahoma is a nice read and it
> resembles the sans-serif font of Latex closest.
I have almost learned to hate Tahoma. Especially in 12 pt size, it looks far
too dense, and in larger sizes it is, well, too large for most purposes
(excluding headings).
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
In article
Animesh K
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Animesh K
> >
> >> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
> >
> > In my ... FF (Mac):
> >
> > "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
> >
> > except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
> >
> Err I am aware of this issue on the Mac.
So this particular blemish does not appear so on FF on Windows?
--
dorayme
In article
Animesh K
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Animesh K
> >
> >> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
> >>
> >> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
> >> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
> >>
> >> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
> >> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >
> > In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
> >
> > "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
> >
> > except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
> >
> > Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
> > up to the job at all.
> >
>
> How does the page at Stutimandal renders? Do you see boxes here too?
>
> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>
This looks fine, no boxes. Perhaps I have not the font on my own
machine that is showing those boxes I referred to in regard to
http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
You have a few css sheets and I have not studied which font you
are instructing the copyright line to render in?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Animesh K
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Animesh K
>>>
>>>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>> In my ... FF (Mac):
>>>
>>> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>>>
>>> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>>>
>> Err I am aware of this issue on the Mac.
>
> So this particular blemish does not appear so on FF on Windows?
>
Yes this blemish does not appears in FF.
My pages are first tested in FF and Opera on Windows. Then I try as much
as I can to fix any display issues with IE 6.0. I am planning to leave
that browser in future design (even though some 60% traffic comes using
IE 6.0 --- that's the only way to change some lazy bones to firefox .. I
wish more people would do that).
Thanks for the help.
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Animesh K
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Animesh K
>>>
>>>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>>>
>>>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>>>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>>>
>>>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
>>>> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>> In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
>>>
>>> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>>>
>>> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>>>
>>> Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
>>> up to the job at all.
>>>
>> How does the page at Stutimandal renders? Do you see boxes here too?
>>
>> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>>
>
>
> This looks fine, no boxes. Perhaps I have not the font on my own
> machine that is showing those boxes I referred to in regard to
>
> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>
> You have a few css sheets and I have not studied which font you
> are instructing the copyright line to render in?
>
The blogspot interface allows me to add a post with fonts. I started
with Trebuchet (hey it looks good!) and then after 3 months I checked to
see an error with IE 6.0. I cannot go back and fix 100 posts just
because IE 6.0 refuses to co-operate.
I didn't put those CSS sheets. They are developed for blogger.com's website.
I am unsure which font is being used for copyright line :-S
Well as long as my website (where I can control things) works better!
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Animesh K:
>
>> FF on windows is a clever browser by your definition. Same is true for
>> Opera.
>
> No, my "definition" said: "A clever browser could construct a
> representation, by decomposing a character into a base character and a
> combining diacritic mark." I don't think any browser does that. It would
> mean that when a browser sees, say, n with dot above as a single
> precomposed character and finds out that it hasn't got a glyph for it,
> it decomposes it into plain n (which it has got) and combining dot above
> (which it might have).
>
> What FF and Opera do is that they pick up the precomposed character from
> another font. Just what IE 7 does in this case, but probably using a
> different replacement font. (Sorry, I'm too tired to check now.)
You are correct. FF and Opera are substituting the font by some other
font with no noticeable aberration. Thanks for the discussion.
>
>> May be I should switch to Arial.
>
> Hardly. Arial is much more limited than Arial Unicode MS.
>
Ok I should switch to Arial Unicode MS :)
>> To me, Tahoma is a nice read and it
>> resembles the sans-serif font of Latex closest.
>
> I have almost learned to hate Tahoma. Especially in 12 pt size, it looks
> far too dense, and in larger sizes it is, well, too large for most
> purposes (excluding headings).
>
Andrew S. wrote:
> Ok here I go.
>
> Fonts which way do you believe it is better to use in html a "%" or a "pt"?
>
> I have has several talks about this with others and without stating my
> opinion what would everyone here has to say is better?
>
> Also just out of curiosity what is your favorite fonts to use in a document?
>
> Mine is verdana
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Andrew S.
>
>
While we are at this ...
Can someone tell which font is closest to the one in "English" in this
PDF document at my website. The pdf was generated using Latex-Dvipdf.
Tahoma seems a bit off.
http://www.stutimandal.com/gif_adi/bhavani_ashtakam.pdf
Thanks in advance,
Animesh
Scripsit Animesh K:
> While we are at this ...
I'm afraid this gets far too off-topic; the comp.fonts group would be much
more suitable.
> Can someone tell which font is closest to the one in "English" in this
> PDF document at my website. The pdf was generated using Latex-Dvipdf.
> Tahoma seems a bit off.
>
> http://www.stutimandal.com/gif_adi/bhavani_ashtakam.pdf
I don't quite understand the question. Do you mean the font used in English
texts there? Don't you know what it is? Actually it uses at least _two_
fonts, a serif font for the heading a for the bold texts and a sans-serif
font for the copy text. This violates typographic principles - they tell you
to use just the opposite, serif for copy, sans-serif for headings. Serif
should rarely appear in bold, and inline bold serif inside sans-serif
paragraphs is just... er... very wrong. Some of the characters look awful;
the macron (line above) is barely noticeable in the heading, too bold in the
bold texts and partly misplaced horizontally.
Oh, and an em dash with spaces around is wrong. Use either an em dash with
no spaces (US style) or an en dash with spaces (British style), and make
this match your choice of the version of English.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On 2007-09-19 23:37:27 +0200, dorayme
> In article
> Animesh K
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Animesh K
>>>
>>>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>>>
>>>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>>>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>>>
>>>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
>>>> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>
>>> In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
>>>
>>> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>>>
>>> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>>>
>>> Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
>>> up to the job at all.
>>>
>>
>> How does the page at Stutimandal renders? Do you see boxes here too?
>>
>> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>>
>
>
> This looks fine, no boxes...
>
Same for me (also with iCab), but there are some odd browser-related
differences. All three do some font-substitution for the accented
letters in "Totakstakam". In iCab this is done so well that you don't
notice the font is different unless you look carefully, but it's a
lighter font. Second best is Firefox, which also uses a lighter font,
but in this case a much lighter one so it's obvious at first glance.
Safari is the worst, because it uses a serif font in a smaller size
(OK, maybe it's nominally the same size, but it looks smaller to the
eye). In the text underneath the font substitution is almost
undetectable in iCab and Firefox, but very obvious in Safari.
--
athel
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Animesh K:
>
>> While we are at this ...
>
> I'm afraid this gets far too off-topic; the comp.fonts group would be
> much more suitable.
>
>> Can someone tell which font is closest to the one in "English" in this
>> PDF document at my website. The pdf was generated using Latex-Dvipdf.
>> Tahoma seems a bit off.
>>
>> http://www.stutimandal.com/gif_adi/bhavani_ashtakam.pdf
I meant the font-family. I found it for myself, it is "Computer Modern
Sans Serif" and I would think it is special to Latex/Tex system.
I didn't follow the english manual of style due to typographic
limitations in the diacritics package and I know why I made certain changes.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2007-09-19 23:37:27 +0200, dorayme
> said:
>
>> In article
>> Animesh K
>>
>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> Animesh K
>>>>
>>>>> http://stutimandal.blogspot.com/2007/09/totakastakam.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This page shows fine in FF or Opera. Safari/IE7.0 put slightly bigger
>>>>> replacement characters. And IE 6.0 just fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess Trebuchet MS lacks the diacritics fonts. (though it is just a
>>>>> dot above/below the regularly ASCII alphabets).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> In my Safari 2 and FF (Mac):
>>>>
>>>> "posted by Stutiman?d?ala @ 12:17 PM"
>>>>
>>>> except that the ? is a small bordered unfilled square.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly fine though. Mac IE (perhaps not too surprisingly) is not
>>>> up to the job at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does the page at Stutimandal renders? Do you see boxes here too?
>>>
>>> http://www.stutimandal.com/new/poemgen.php?id=33
>>>
>>
>>
>> This looks fine, no boxes...
>>
>
> Same for me (also with iCab), but there are some odd browser-related
> differences. All three do some font-substitution for the accented
> letters in "Totakstakam". In iCab this is done so well that you don't
> notice the font is different unless you look carefully, but it's a
> lighter font. Second best is Firefox, which also uses a lighter font,
> but in this case a much lighter one so it's obvious at first glance.
> Safari is the worst, because it uses a serif font in a smaller size (OK,
> maybe it's nominally the same size, but it looks smaller to the eye). In
> the text underneath the font substitution is almost undetectable in iCab
> and Firefox, but very obvious in Safari.
>
Thanks for the detailed review. I think I will change the font-family to
a diacritics-supporting one in the next round of updates.
Many thanks,
Animesh