Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Mozilla Thunderbird mail software

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Mozilla Thunderbird mail software
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:41:37 -0800

On 1/15/05 6:47 AM, "Jim West" <jwest AT highland.net> wrote:
> here's the first word of genesis:
>
> ty#)rb

Jim, if you are experimenting in the above clip with your specific-font
solution (as distinct from the Unicode solution), it's not working, and
there may be a couple reasons why. Your e-mail client may not be sending out
the font information. If your e-mail is encoded as text, even as Unicode
text, it does not include any typeface name information. (Unicode isn't a
font, it's just a standard way to extend the character set of any given
typeface for greater inclusion of glyphs.) You might have formatted the
string ty#)rb as SPTiberian in your composed e-mail, but the fact that you
did so might not have been encoded in your e-mail itself. In order for your
e-mail to include font information, it needs to be sent in a format that
_preserves_ that information from start to finish. For most e-mailers, that
means an HTML format. The sending client has to transmit the e-mail as HTML
and the receiving client has to be configured to display HTML e-mails as
such. (I am not sure whether any clients use RTF/Rich Text Format.) It is
also possible that your e-mail server or the receiving e-mail server, or any
server along the way that actually pays attention to your document, might
strip the HTML code. Probably most of us on this list don't have control
over how our e-mail servers are configured. My guess is that most e-mail
servers should have no problem with HTML-formatted e-mails but that might
not be universal.

If faced with two non-universal "solutions" to the same problem, like this
"typing Hebrew" issue, it seems to me that the solution with the easiest
implementation and best potential for longevity is probably preferable. That
would be Unicode.

Chris

--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Armstrong Fellow in Religion
Pepperdine University
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
http://www.iTanakh.org
http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page