<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bruce,<br>
<br>
I have all of those fonts already installed on my computer. <br>
<br>
The reason why I am not seeing the Greek and Hebrew characters is
because you are using a non-unicode font for the Greek and Hebrew. I
have my browsers set to ignore fonts specified on web pages because I
use specific unicode fonts that work best with our library catalog.
They are large unicode fonts that include Greek, Hebrew, and Cyrillic.
The non-unicode Greek font you are using has mapped the omega character
to the w key so if I look at it with a unicode font, such as Arial
Unicode or even Times New Roman, I won't see omega but w. <br>
<br>
Using any unicode font that has Greek would seem to be a better
solution to it because these are just standard Greek letters that are
in most unicode fonts. Then the text would not be font dependent. <br>
<br>
The same is true of the Hebrew. Even Times New Roman would have worked
for the characters we are using here. Why are non-unicode fonts used
to display these characters? <br>
<br>
<br>
If you are going to use these fonts, somewhere I think you need to
indicate to users that they can only see the text if they have those
fonts and if they tell the browser not to ignore web-specified fonts.
Wouldn't it be easier to use Times New Roman, which is standard with
windows rather than the non-unicode Greek and Hebrew fonts that you are
now using?<br>
<br>
Joe Ross<br>
<br>
Bruce C Johnson wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4667FF19020000CD00012A9E@ntgwgate.loc.gov"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Deborah:
I've just reviewed both the file that is currently in production, as well as the one that is about to be put into production (with some minor formatting fixes) and te problem that Joe is reporting isn't there. In all likelihood the cause is that he may be lacking some fonts to support the special characters in this section. If he installs the fonts that I've attached to this message onto his computer, he should be able to see everything that is already there. To install the fonts, click the "Start" button in the lower left corner of his computer screen, then click "Settings > Control Panel > Fonts" and follow the instructions there.
Bruce
Bruce Chr. Johnson
Cataloging Distribution Service
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540-4911 USA
202-707-1652 (voice) <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bjoh@loc.gov">bjoh@loc.gov</a>
202-707-3959 (fax)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Deborah J. Leslie" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:DJLeslie@FOLGER.edu"><DJLeslie@FOLGER.edu></a> 06/07/07 12:23 PM >>>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Horrors!!!
The nonroman signatures are correct in the hard copy, but not in
Cataloger's Desktop.
Bruce, this is a Big Deal. They need to be fixed. Plus, I would be
interested to know how it happened, not for the purpose of blame but for
possible prevention strategies.
Thanks,
Deborah
______________________________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu">djleslie@folger.edu</a> | 202.675-0369 | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.folger.edu">http://www.folger.edu</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Ross [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jross@nd.edu">mailto:jross@nd.edu</a>]
Sent: Thursday, 07 June, 2007 11:50
To: Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: DCRM(B) nonroman signatures
Hi Deborah,
Please look at DCRM(b) 7B9.8-9.11. I do not yet have the hard copy of
this, but in the online version available through Catalogers Desktop,
there are a number of problems. The sentence below the chart of
characters in 7B9.9 gives the signatures in roman characters, not Greek,
and then the second statement which should be the romanized version has
the phrase "(in Greek characters)" and gives the same list of characters
a-g, A-2L. Obviously, this looks redundant because the first statement
is not in the vernacular script. In the comment section, everything
is given in romanized form. If I remember correctly, we were giving
this in Greek script or characters, but the most distressing part is
that the description of the full alphabet has the phrase "A-W", not
alpha to omega [in Greek script]. This was not there in the latest
version I looked at. I remember there were font issues in the display
but the right unicode values were there for the characters. As there is
no "w" in the romanized form of the Greek alphabet in the chart, this is
very confusing.
The same problem comes up in the description of signatures in Hebrew
alphabet (7B9.10). The signature statement below the chart of characters
is in romanized form, not the vernacular script. Instead of aleph to
shin, it reads "a-w". Where is this "w" coming from? Did an editor at
the printing press transcribe omega and shin as "w"? The romanized
signature statement uses the character for aleph and sh, which is
correct, but what happened to the vernacular script signatures? Again,
"w" is not in the list of letters used to romanize the Greek alphabet,
so the reader and cataloger is confused.
The Church Slavic signature statement at least came out ok.
Did these signature statements come out correctly in the hard copy but
not in the online version? I don't see how this could be a font problem
in individual browsers. Someone changed the unicode values in our text
and created this confusion. A spellchecker?
Thanks for looking into this.
Regards,
Joe
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>