Umlaut

[Mark Schonewille]

Hi Mark and Signe Marie,

The ability to display combined unicode characters depends on the  
text engine used by the software. Revolution's text engine is much  
oder than the invention of combining diaresis. There is a slight  
possibility that I am wrong, but I don't think that Revolution is  
able to display combining diaresis in text fields.

It is still possible to convert a simple text containing "n¨" to  
correct unicode. Just get the unicodeText from the field and replace  
all unicode characters representing "n¨" with the binary form of the  
hex value 006ecc88 before writing the data to a file.

Looking for a solution, I found a nice set of fonts here:

http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php? 
site_id=nrsi&item_id=CharisSIL_download#277fc10b

but guess what: no n-umlaut.

Signe Marie, have you thought of creating a special font file with  
just the characters you need? This shouldn't be too difficult.

Best,

Mark

--

Economy-x-Talk
Consultancy and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com
http://www.salery.biz

Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software.  
Download at http://www.salery.biz

Op 28-feb-2007, om 13:54 heeft Mark Smith het volgende geschreven:

> Looking through the Character Palette on my Mac, I see a character  
> called "Combining Diaresis" which seems to be some kind of  
> 'standalone' umlaut.
> It has the Unicode value '0308' and the UTF8 value of 'CC88'.
>
> According to Wikipedia "In Unicode, diacritics are always added  
> after the main character." so I think that the following sequence  
> of (decimal) byte values should work as unicodeText:
>
> 0 110 3 8
>
> But it doesn't work on my machine - all I get is a solitary "n",  
> even thought checking the unicodeText of the fld shows the values  
> above.
> The same happens using "u" instead of "n"....perhaps Rev's unicode  
> implementation doesn't support "Combining" diacriticals, using only  
> 'precomposed' characters?
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
> On 28 Feb 2007, at 11:30, Signe Marie Sanne wrote:
>