Anne Mahoney wrote:
> Michael Beddow wrote:
> (snip, snip)
> > On the other hand, things have moved on since the on-line OED was designed,
> > and you may be confident that your users will all already have, or be able
> > easily to obtain, the necessary fonts to render all your text as text,
> > without any substituted graphics being needed. But in any case, to
> > substitute or not to substitute graphics is an issue that applies only to
> > the delivery system, and will not impinge on your actual encoding or editing
> > practices (though it may arise in a different form when you are considering
> > how your encoders and editors will input and review non-Latin text).
> "You may be confident," if it means "you might be confident, perhaps you
> are confident," is exactly right. But if it means "you can be
> confident" or "confidence is justified," I think it is a bit premature.
> Nonetheless, I concur with the main point of Michael's advice: encode
> the text in a standard way and worry about display later. Unicode is
> definitely the way to go if you can.
> I would also advise marking the languages, separate from their character
> encodings -- that is, given a passage in Latin, mark it as <quote
> lang=la> (or <foreign> or <seg> or <p> or whatever element is
> appropriate), even though there will obviously be no problem displaying
> Latin on the web. You may want to index the foreign words, link them to
> on-line dictionaries, supply glosses, or the like, and you can't do that
> unless you know which words are in which languages.
> --Anne Mahoney
> Tufts University