When is Unicode not Unicode?

[Graham Samuel]

The HooHah is about the fact that a normal PC running XP (and for all I know, more modern versions of Windows) doesn't seem to have a guaranteed-to-be-present Unicode font with even my quite limited set of mathematical symbols in it, at least my tests have not been very satisfactory. There have been two alternative suggestions from members of this list (thanks, you know who you are!).

Just to remind you, these are: use HTML, and use MacToISO. Both look more promising than Unicode to me. I am loth to use the HTML one because my source text isn't HTML, so I would have to put all the paragraph markers, colour changes etc in by hand (I suppose), or get the original author of the text to do it (I predict a blank refusal), so I'm hoping MacToISO will be sufficient, and it probably will.

Cheers

Graham


On 18 Dec 2013, at 18:02, Richmond wrote:

> I don't know what the 'HooHah' is about.
> 
> All currently available operating systems for which Livecode can produce standalones are Unicode compliant,
> as are a lot of operating systems in use since 2000 - I am currently playing around with Unicode on Mac OS 9!
> 
> The plethora of Windows character mappings in use preUnicode is a minefield.