[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Andrew Fferreir yscrifef:
> Favour appears to go to marking final soft affricates with an accent. I
> will go and look at the character lists for html and report back.
The Latin-1 character set has no modified c's except c-cedilla, and
no modified g's at all. Full Unicode would allow either acute
accent or dot above, but that would unfortunately make
the Web site partially unreadable except to those with 4.x browsers
and suitable fonts.
For this reason, as well as the standard use of apostrophe for
omission in many languages, I favor the 2-character sequences "c'"
But if you do choose to use the accented characters, the HTML
code sequences are as follows:
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH ACUTE Ć
LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH ACUTE ć
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER G WITH ACUTE Ǵ
LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH ACUTE ǵ
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH DOT ABOVE Ċ
LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH DOT ABOVE ċ
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER G WITH DOT ABOVE Ġ
LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH DOT ABOVE ġ
In addition, you must include the line
<meta http-equiv="Content-type" value="text/html; charset=utf-8">
to work around a bug in Netscape. Place this before the
I have written a test page at
off the three choices. Using Navigator 4.x with the
Bitstream Cyberbit Unicode font, I can see the accented c's correctly,
but the accented g's are just boxes (Cyberbit doesn't have
those characters represented). I urge you all to try
viewing this page yourselves and report the results (anything
from boxes to ?s to a browser crash).
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)