[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Salaam! Danny wrote: > > - to use nice fonts encoded in lower ASCII and make them available for > > download -- easy but unconvenient for users; > > That's been the de facto standard for quite a while. All you have to do is > install a font (or two or three). AFAIK many Arabic and Farsi sites use this approach. > They're also not usually in lower ASCII only. I know. I meant the fonts using 256-symbol range, like they were for Win3.* and Win95. > If you're going to use Arabic script in that fashion, a "simplified" Arabic > (or Farsi, etc.) font like those that come with ParsNegar are good. The only > character that requires more than two different forms is /h/. I've got two font packs: IRNA fonts (11 types) -- very nice, but without vocalization (and I need it); and Persian[name]SSK (5 types), the latter permit easy input with Keyman3.2. It looks, though, that I need to provide a reference to the source of the fonts: they are freeware, but copyright is taken seriously, isn't it? And I just DO NOT REMEMBER where I took them from... If you know any font links, please mention them! I take into consideration your notes: > Yes there are, not all people can handle Unicode. > > - to use graphics (e.g. in *.gif format) -- it's easier to die... > UGH. A pain in the neck for the poor soul having to make the document, and > can take a while to download too. Christophe wrote: > A possible, though limited, alternative is to use embedded fonts I've got no software for this purpose. > > - to use graphics (e.g. in *.gif format) -- it's easier to die... > Still, if you want to be sure that everyone will see your webpage correctly, > it's still the best way. For an optimal use of graphics (not too much of a > hassle for the designer, not too much to download for the reader), make graphic > files per word rather than per character. Still a lot of work but it's better > than nothing. Surely, some pages may be entirely one gif file :-) But, guys, that's really MUCH work to do... > Of course, this requires *a lot* of work from > the designer :((( . That's why I'm still considering your proposals... 'cos if I used Romanization, I could have done presentations merely on the lists... Danny's variant with non-Unicode 256-range fonts, for now, seems most acceptable. At least I can design a page with them directly in FrontPage Express, and not to do hand-made HTML... Yitzik ~~~~~~~~~~~~~