∗ displays box...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Aaron, Mar 7, 2006.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    I'm trying to use the Low Asterisk in IE6 but it just displays a small
    rectangle box.

    Works ok in Firefox.

    Any suggestions?
    Aaron, Mar 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Aaron finally
    proclaimed:

    > I'm trying to use the Low Asterisk in IE6 but it just displays a small
    > rectangle box.


    IE6 doesn't appear to support the entity ∗. It also doesn't
    appear to support ⁎ or ⁎ either, so I would guess that you
    are pretty much out of luck. Interestingly, I couldn't get the latter
    two to work with FF either, whereas the entity name worked fine.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
    Dylan Parry, Mar 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Dylan Parry wrote:

    [IE]
    > doesn't appear to support ⁎ or ⁎ either, so I would
    > guess that you are pretty much out of luck.


    I don't see any reason why IE would need to "support" it - it's just
    another character in a font, in Plane-0, with no special properties -
    if it's available in an appropriate font, it should just plain work,
    when that font is used.

    The catch is that it's not in WGL4.0, so the bog-standard fonts that
    come with Windoze are less likely to contain it.

    Hmmm, http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/unicode/unidata20.html#x204E
    The fact that Mozilla is showing it for me, seems to prove that I've
    got it *somewhere* in the Windows fonts on this XP system, but I would
    need to hunt around to find which one it might be, and then
    reconfigure IE to use the right one. Hmmm, Opera is showing it too.

    This is where it *really* would be useful to know what font was being
    *used* for the rendering (not merely which font is specified by the
    preferences and CSS - that's easy!).

    Hmmm, looks to me as if Moz. and Opera found it, in this particular
    setup, in the font Aboriginal Sans. Yup, if I reconfigure MSIE to use
    Aboriginal Sans as its default "Latin" font, this character appears,
    and it (and its neighbours) look just like the ones which Mozilla and
    Opera had found.


    Surely it's easier (and safer all round) to install and use a
    WWW-compatible browser, than to struggle along with that elderly
    operating-system component that thinks it's a web browser? But of
    course there's also one's sad readers to think about. Pathetic,
    really.
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >
    > [IE]
    >> doesn't appear to support ⁎ or ⁎ either, so I would
    >> guess that you are pretty much out of luck.

    >
    > I don't see any reason why IE would need to "support" it - it's just
    > another character in a font, in Plane-0, with no special properties -
    > if it's available in an appropriate font, it should just plain work,
    > when that font is used.
    >
    > The catch is that it's not in WGL4.0, so the bog-standard fonts that
    > come with Windoze are less likely to contain it.
    >
    > Hmmm, http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/unicode/unidata20.html#x204E
    > The fact that Mozilla is showing it for me, seems to prove that I've
    > got it *somewhere* in the Windows fonts on this XP system, but I would
    > need to hunt around to find which one it might be, and then
    > reconfigure IE to use the right one. Hmmm, Opera is showing it too.
    >
    > This is where it *really* would be useful to know what font was being
    > *used* for the rendering (not merely which font is specified by the
    > preferences and CSS - that's easy!).
    >
    > Hmmm, looks to me as if Moz. and Opera found it, in this particular
    > setup, in the font Aboriginal Sans. Yup, if I reconfigure MSIE to use
    > Aboriginal Sans as its default "Latin" font, this character appears,
    > and it (and its neighbours) look just like the ones which Mozilla and
    > Opera had found.
    >
    >
    > Surely it's easier (and safer all round) to install and use a
    > WWW-compatible browser, than to struggle along with that elderly
    > operating-system component that thinks it's a web browser? But of
    > course there's also one's sad readers to think about. Pathetic,
    > really.


    My IE6 displays mostly small rectangle boxes for that Unicode range 20 link.

    Is there some way to register or *Initialize* a browser on load?
    Or Declare a character set? or
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> ?

    You can tell I'm an amateur at this, but this sounds logical.
    Aaron, Mar 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Aaron

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    > This is where it *really* would be useful to know what font was being
    > *used* for the rendering (not merely which font is specified by the
    > preferences and CSS - that's easy!).


    http://message-id.net/<5n.co.uk>

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Mar 7, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Toby Inkster wrote:

    > > This is where it *really* would be useful to know what font was
    > > being *used* for the rendering (not merely which font is specified
    > > by the preferences and CSS - that's easy!).

    >
    > http://message-id.net/<5n.co.uk>


    I *had* actually spotted that, and saved it for later investigation,
    thanks; but it seems it's specific to unix-oid versions: when tried on
    Win32 Opera, nothing interesting happened.

    http://www.opera.com/docs/switches/ doesn't look promising, as far as
    Windows is concerned.

    Sorry...
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >
    > [IE]
    >> doesn't appear to support ⁎ or ⁎ either, so I would
    >> guess that you are pretty much out of luck.

    >

    [snip]
    > Hmmm, looks to me as if Moz. and Opera found it, in this particular
    > setup, in the font Aboriginal Sans. Yup, if I reconfigure MSIE to use
    > Aboriginal Sans as its default "Latin" font, this character appears,
    > and it (and its neighbours) look just like the ones which Mozilla and
    > Opera had found.


    Don't be too quick to praise Firefox and Opera. I noticed that &lowast;
    and &#8270 weren't displaying as the same character. I tried this:

    <p>|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|</p>
    <p>|⁎|⁎|⁎|⁎|</p>
    <p>|∗|∗|∗|∗|</p>

    and found that Firefox and Opera were assigning &lowast to ∗,
    "asterisk operator", rather than to ⁎, "low asterisk". Or so it
    seems from their respective appearances.
    Harlan Messinger, Mar 8, 2006
    #7
  8. Aaron

    Alan Wood Guest

    Re: &lowast; displays box...

    Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >
    > Don't be too quick to praise Firefox and Opera. I noticed that &lowast;
    > and &#8270 weren't displaying as the same character. I tried this:
    >
    > <p>|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|</p>
    > <p>|⁎|⁎|⁎|⁎|</p>
    > <p>|∗|∗|∗|∗|</p>
    >
    > and found that Firefox and Opera were assigning &lowast to ∗,
    > "asterisk operator", rather than to ⁎, "low asterisk". Or so it
    > seems from their respective appearances.


    Here is an extract from the W3C Recommendation:

    <!ENTITY lowast CDATA "∗" -- asterisk operator, U+2217 ISOtech
    -->

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html>

    This suggests that Firefox and Opera are complying with the
    recommendations.

    --
    Alan Wood
    http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
    Alan Wood, Mar 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Aaron

    Alan Wood Guest

    Re: &lowast; displays box...

    Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >
    > Don't be too quick to praise Firefox and Opera. I noticed that &lowast;
    > and &#8270 weren't displaying as the same character. I tried this:
    >
    > <p>|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|&lowast;|</p>
    > <p>|⁎|⁎|⁎|⁎|</p>
    > <p>|∗|∗|∗|∗|</p>
    >
    > and found that Firefox and Opera were assigning &lowast to ∗,
    > "asterisk operator", rather than to ⁎, "low asterisk". Or so it
    > seems from their respective appearances.


    Here is an extract from the W3C Recommendation:

    <!ENTITY lowast CDATA "∗" -- asterisk operator, U+2217 ISOtech
    -->

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html>

    This suggests that Firefox and Opera are complying with the
    recommendations.

    --
    Alan Wood
    http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
    Alan Wood, Mar 8, 2006
    #9
  10. On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:

    > Don't be too quick to praise Firefox and Opera.


    Hmmm?

    > I noticed that &lowast; and
    > &#8270 weren't displaying as the same character.


    [...]
    > and found that Firefox and Opera were assigning &lowast to ∗,
    > "asterisk operator", rather than to ⁎, "low asterisk".


    Then they are implementing HTML4.01 as defined:

    <!ENTITY lowast CDATA "∗" -- asterisk operator, U+2217 ISOtech
    -->

    I hadn't noticed that before. If this is a blunder, then it appears
    to have been there in the ISOtech entity set for quite some years, and
    presumably inherited by HTML, as a search for the terms e.g

    ISOtech ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES lowast

    will reveal.

    I don't use these named character entities, and had not noticed the
    discrepancy before.
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 8, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chumley Walrus
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    12,177
    =?Utf-8?B?QnJpYW4gQnJvd24=?=
    Dec 16, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    501
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    358
    Patrick.O.Ige
    Nov 4, 2005
  4. Gnarlodious
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    17,587
    elizas
    May 5, 2010
  5. KMB
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    79
    Randy Webb
    Oct 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page