Subject: [css-d] smaller checkboxes

From: bmerkey at tampabay.rr.com (Brett Merkey)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:10:06 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hickson" <[email-masked]>
<<Unfortunately that won't work in any standard-compliant UA, because the
Wingdings font doesn't have a UNICODE encoding, and so compliant UAs won't
use it to render characters (since the font claims to not support any
UNICODE characters, and the HTML and CSS specs say that the document
character set is UNICODE).

To make it work in any compliant UA, use the UNICODE checkmark characters,
e.g. U+2610 and U+2611 (entities &#x2610; and &#x2611;, which, if your
e-mail client is working right, look like ☐ and ☑).>>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, happily in respect to font substitution, Mozilla, Netscape 6.1+, and
IE
are not standards-compliant browsers.

I have tried UNICODE solutions and they always end up causing more
problems in more situations than the easier and more common method
of font substitution. At least in the Windows world, I see nothing but
problems in implementing Unicode equivalents.

Do you have a link to some example where checkboxes (or something
similar) have been done using standards for glyph display?

Brett

---

From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Brett Merkey wrote:
>
> Well, happily in respect to font substitution, Mozilla, Netscape 6.1+,
> and IE are not standards-compliant browsers.

I believe recent Mozilla builds have been fixed in this regard.

> problems in more situations than the easier and more common method of
> font substitution. At least in the Windows world, I see nothing but

Unfortunately, we're not in a Windows world. Millions of people use other
operating systems.

> similar) have been done using standards for glyph display?

This works in Mozilla:

   http://www.damowmow.com/playground/demos/checkboxes/001.html

Unfortunately it doesn't work in WinIE6, due to its rather abysmal UNICODE
support. It is sad that the most popular UA is so bad at basic standards.
It was the same back in the days of Netscape 4... Maybe having poor
support for the specs is the key to being popular? ;-)

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'