Some windows font testing please

[Rick Walsh]

On 3 August 2016 at 22:30, Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2016 22:27, "Robert Helling" <helling at lmu.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 03.08.2016, at 11:31, Lubomir I. Ivanov <neolit123 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> the safest bet is to use actual images in the HTML instead special font
>>> glyphs.
>>
>>
>> only when I checked the second time, I realized, the problem is not one
of
>> the arrows, it is the “fat hyphen”. We could simply replace that with an
>> ordinary dash (minus sign) which should be present in any font.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I assumed the offending characters were the arrows and was going to try to
> find a reasonable replacement from the Vista character set. But if it's
just
> the fat hyphen, replacing with a dash is ideal.
>
To be certain, I did check with with Vista (currently writing from a laptop
with a semi-detached screen), and can verify that the arrows display
correctly, but the fat hyphen does not.

Confusingly, the diagonal arrows are not included in Courier New font in
Windows Vista according to the character map.  The more surprising thing is
probably that they are displayed, not that the fat dash (U+2796, or
&#10134) isn't.  When I copy the table into MS Word, the arrows are
actually displayed as MS Mincho font.  It appears Windows / Office is doing
something clever to substitute one font for another.

Do we want to rely on the cleverness of the OS to choose the correct font?
If we're happy with that, let's leave the arrows as are, and use a dash for
a stop.  We could format the dash as bold.

Alternatives for the arrows, which are in Courier New and hopefully
displays correctly on all systems, could be (descend, level, ascend, stop):
↓ (U+2193), → (U+2192), ↑ (U+2191), -
▼ (U+25BC), ► (U+25BA), ▲ (U+25B2), ■ (U+25A0)
˅ (U+02C5), ˃ (U+02C3) or > (U+003E), ˄ (U+02C4), - bad choice, displays ok
on Windows by not my phone gmail or Fedora system.

Above is formatted as fixed width if your email viewer plays along.

Do you have any thoughts or other suggestions?

Cheers,

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20160804/699c453f/attachment.html>