I'm using Chrome 3.0.195.21, and have long found that some characters in Wikipedia render as boxes. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_with_stroke renders as "<box> (minuscule: <box>)..."
Now, I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters and the advice is not very useful or specific: it says that "Special symbols should display properly without further configuration with ... Safari and most other recent browsers." I tried installing Gnu Unifont and setting it as the default browser font, but that seems to be overridden by MediaWiki anyway?
So anyway, I'm asking two questions: 1) What can I do to get more special characters to render correctly in Chrome? 2) Could/would anyone improve [[Help:Special characters]] to make it clearer, more specific and correct?
Thanks, Steve
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using Chrome 3.0.195.21, and have long found that some characters in Wikipedia render as boxes. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_with_stroke renders as "<box> (minuscule: <box>)..."
As the article says, the characters were only added to Unicode in 2005 and 2006. It's to be expected that even good Unicode fonts might not yet support them. The article even notes that few fonts support the characters.
Now, I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters and the advice is not very useful or specific: it says that "Special symbols should display properly without further configuration with ... Safari and most other recent browsers." I tried installing Gnu Unifont and setting it as the default browser font, but that seems to be overridden by MediaWiki anyway?
No, GNU Unifont probably just doesn't have those characters. The default fonts on Ubuntu seem to have the majuscule but not the minuscule (or at least that's how Chrome and Firefox both render the page).
So anyway, I'm asking two questions:
- What can I do to get more special characters to render correctly in Chrome?
Get better fonts. Realistically, you should do this by waiting a few years until your preinstalled fonts hopefully support the character.
- Could/would anyone improve [[Help:Special characters]] to make it
clearer, more specific and correct?
It needs to note that there's no font out there that really supports *all* of Unicode, especially since Unicode keeps changing. Wikipedia editors need to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a Unicode character is supported widely enough to justify using it in an article's text, or whether an image should be used instead.
Hoi, The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your language because ...".
I do appreciate that TECHNICALLY you are right. However what is needed is people adding the "new" glyphs to the font. This is no rocket science.. we can do this. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using Chrome 3.0.195.21, and have long found that some characters in Wikipedia render as boxes. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_with_stroke renders as "<box> (minuscule: <box>)..."
As the article says, the characters were only added to Unicode in 2005 and 2006. It's to be expected that even good Unicode fonts might not yet support them. The article even notes that few fonts support the characters.
Now, I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters and the advice is not very useful or specific: it says that "Special symbols should display properly without further configuration with ... Safari and most other recent browsers." I tried installing Gnu Unifont and setting it as the default browser font, but that seems to be overridden by MediaWiki anyway?
No, GNU Unifont probably just doesn't have those characters. The default fonts on Ubuntu seem to have the majuscule but not the minuscule (or at least that's how Chrome and Firefox both render the page).
So anyway, I'm asking two questions:
- What can I do to get more special characters to render correctly in
Chrome?
Get better fonts. Realistically, you should do this by waiting a few years until your preinstalled fonts hopefully support the character.
- Could/would anyone improve [[Help:Special characters]] to make it
clearer, more specific and correct?
It needs to note that there's no font out there that really supports *all* of Unicode, especially since Unicode keeps changing. Wikipedia editors need to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a Unicode character is supported widely enough to justify using it in an article's text, or whether an image should be used instead.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your language because ...".
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English Wikipedia about a single obscure character, and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly. Nothing I said should be construed to have any bearing on radically different situations, such as an entire wiki whose language is poorly supported on common platforms. While I appreciate that you take a great interest in technical topics related to internationalization, this is not such a topic.
Hoi, This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself. Languages that need characters that are missing in fonts that are in general use are not isolated affairs. In the end there is only one solution; we should be part of a solution that allows us to show all characters. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your language because ...".
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English Wikipedia about a single obscure character, and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly. Nothing I said should be construed to have any bearing on radically different situations, such as an entire wiki whose language is poorly supported on common platforms. While I appreciate that you take a great interest in technical topics related to internationalization, this is not such a topic.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself.
Ethnologue says it has 300 speakers, if I'm reading it correctly:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=tnc
With a literacy rate of 5% or less, I guess that works out to 15 people in the world who can actually read or write it? If I'm reading the figures correctly, Tanimuca-Retuarã is drastically below the threshold where there can be any serious question of creating educational resources in the language, so I really don't think Wikimedia needs to concern itself with it.
In any event, we are talking about an article on the *English* Wikipedia, and what the *English* Wikipedia should do when this situation arises. I made no comment on anything relating to anyone trying to write Tanimuca-Retuarã, which nobody is on the English Wikipedia. It's a non sequitur.
Languages that need characters that are missing in fonts that are in general use are not isolated affairs. In the end there is only one solution; we should be part of a solution that allows us to show all characters.
Those who want to help building fonts can feel free to do so. It will not change the fact that as Unicode expands, support for new additions will be gradual, and wikis need to figure out something to do when a character is not well supported by their viewers.
Hoi, I have been told off list that Windows-7 supports this character by default. This is one valid reason to choose Windows-7 for your operating system. It is also a challenge to other operating systems to be as good. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself. Languages that need characters that are missing in fonts that are in general use are not isolated affairs. In the end there is only one solution; we should be part of a solution that allows us to show all characters. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your language because ...".
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English Wikipedia about a single obscure character, and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly. Nothing I said should be construed to have any bearing on radically different situations, such as an entire wiki whose language is poorly supported on common platforms. While I appreciate that you take a great interest in technical topics related to internationalization, this is not such a topic.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Or install the Unicode font that support it all.
Maybe Wikipedia can do
* { font-family: "name of font that wikipedia recomend","Arial Unicode", Helvetica, sans; }
..and provide somewhere a link to such "recomended font", if that font exist. So, If a dude has that font installed, the page will use it, and If it don't exist, It will use "Arial Unicode", and If arial unicode don't exist,... It will use helvetica, and If helvetica don't exist, any available sans serif font.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have been told off list that Windows-7 supports this character by default. This is one valid reason to choose Windows-7 for your operating system. It is also a challenge to other operating systems to be as good. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself. Languages that need characters that are missing in fonts that are in general use are not isolated affairs. In the end there is only one solution; we should be part of a solution that allows us to show all characters. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/25 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your language because ...".
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English Wikipedia about a single obscure character, and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly. Nothing I said should be construed to have any bearing on radically different situations, such as an entire wiki whose language is poorly supported on common platforms. While I appreciate that you take a great interest in technical topics related to internationalization, this is not such a topic.
...
Tei wrote:
Or install the Unicode font that support it all.
Maybe Wikipedia can do
- {
font-family: "name of font that wikipedia recomend","Arial Unicode", Helvetica, sans; }
..and provide somewhere a link to such "recomended font", if that font exist. So, If a dude has that font installed, the page will use it, and If it don't exist, It will use "Arial Unicode", and If arial unicode don't exist,... It will use helvetica, and If helvetica don't exist, any available sans serif font.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unicode and its related templates.
-- Neil
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English Wikipedia about a single obscure character, and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly.
Well, actually I was just using that character as a (fairly unimportant) example.
Anyway, is there really no general solution to me coming across various articles with characters that render as boxes? You seem to be saying ("there's no font out there that really supports *all* of Unicode") that the only solution is to download and install the particular font that has the glyphs used by one particular article...but that will then leave other articles uncovered.
I'm amazed there isn't even a reference unicode font that has all the glyphs?
Steve
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually I was just using that character as a (fairly unimportant) example.
That's why I said "and related cases where isolated characters don't display properly".
Anyway, is there really no general solution to me coming across various articles with characters that render as boxes? You seem to be saying ("there's no font out there that really supports *all* of Unicode") that the only solution is to download and install the particular font that has the glyphs used by one particular article...but that will then leave other articles uncovered.
The solution is to not use poorly-supported Unicode characters in articles. No, there's no better solution. It's just the same as using fancy new HTML5 features that aren't widely supported, or whatever. That's the price of using evolving standards with multiple implementations instead of a homogeneous one-vendor system.
I'm amazed there isn't even a reference unicode font that has all the glyphs?
There's not any that I know of. Go figure out how to propose the idea to the Unicode Consortium if you like.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have been told off list that Windows-7 supports this character by default. This is one valid reason to choose Windows-7 for your operating system. It is also a challenge to other operating systems to be as good.
The relative merits of operating systems are not relevant to either this topic or this list.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe Wikipedia can do
- {
font-family: "name of font that wikipedia recomend","Arial Unicode", Helvetica, sans; }
Wikipedia will not set a default font for Latin-based scripts at any time in the foreseeable future. We need to respect users' choice of default font wherever possible. (For some languages' scripts this may not be practical, but that's a separate issue.) As far as I know, most browsers these days will try to use any available font that has the character in question if the specified font doesn't have it. I'm not totally sure about that, though.
It still doesn't solve the problem that some characters aren't supported in almost any commonly-available font.
Hoi, The question asked in the first post is "What can I do to get more special characters to render correctly in Chrome?". The answer that I supplied is use Windows 7 because this will support such characters. This is certainly true for the character given as an example.
Consequently, my answer is very much on topic. Not all operating systems are equal in their support in their support of Unicode. Windows 7 apparantly does a better job. Thanks, GerardM
PS I am not happy with this fact but it just happens to be this way.
2009/9/27 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I have been told off list that Windows-7 supports this character by
default.
This is one valid reason to choose Windows-7 for your operating system.
It
is also a challenge to other operating systems to be as good.
The relative merits of operating systems are not relevant to either this topic or this list.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org