468,545 Members | 1,851 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,545 developers. It's quick & easy.

cannot type greek fonts to IE

Hello,

I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.

Greek language pack is installed correctly.
Encoding for greek is OK.

What is the problem?

Thanks in advance for your answers,
Alex
Jul 23 '05 #1
27 5328
Once upon a time *alexdoulou* wrote:
Hello,

I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.

Greek language pack is installed correctly.
Encoding for greek is OK.

What is the problem?

Thanks in advance for your answers,
Alex


The server don't support Greek fonts in forms?

--
/Arne
Jul 23 '05 #2
alexdoulou wrote:
Hello,

I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.

Greek language pack is installed correctly.
Encoding for greek is OK.

What is the problem?

Thanks in advance for your answers,
Alex


I think the problem is Internet Explorer. I've had the same problem entering
Japanese text into forms. Here are 3 things you could try doing:

1. Use a different browser.

2. Go to your Internet Explorer settings, and turn off the option
called "Use stylesheets"

3. Create a css file containing this line:
INPUT, TEXTAREA { font-family: Athenian; }
(replace "Athenian" with the name of a Greek font on your system)
Save this file and tell Internet Explorer to use it as your default
stylesheet.

Phil

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
Jul 23 '05 #3
al********@yahoo.gr (alexdoulou) wrote:
Hello,
Khaire!
I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.
You don't type fonts. You type characters, which might or might not be
echoed on the screen using some font(s). The distinction between a
character and its visual appearance (a glyph from some font) is a
fundamental one, and it has been said that nobody can really understand
it without understanding Plato's concept of "idea". :-) But as a
simple (?) thought experiment, consider the possibility of filling out a
form with an interface where you enter the characters from keyboard or
Braille input device and the browser _speaks_ them to you; look, mo, no
fonts! :-)
Greek language pack is installed correctly.
Encoding for greek is OK.


Maybe. But the first thing to check is the encoding of the page
containing the form. For this, a URL is needed. If the encoding is OK,
then the next question is _how_ you try to enter Greek characters.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #4
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, alexdoulou wrote:
I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.
This (i18n forms input, not specifically Greek) is one of my
specialist subjects. But for any kind of useful diagnostics, we need
a URL that we can try out.
Greek language pack is installed correctly.
Encoding for greek is OK.
(I don't know how you can be so sure. You could be right, but how
can we know, with the limited amount of detail you have presented
here? Your emphasis on "fonts" is, to say the least, rather worrying
in an HTML context. HTML doesn't really work like that.)
What is the problem?


The main problem, as I see it, is that you're not presenting the
actual patient to the doctor. What would you expect if you went to
the doctor and described your brother's symptoms? Surely the doctor
would want to examine your brother in person before reaching a
worthwhile conclusion, no? In the same way, we at least want to see a
URL where we can test whatever it is that you are trying.

If you want to get technical, you could take a look at
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...form-i18n.html

good luck
Jul 23 '05 #5
On 14 Oct 2004, alexdoulou wrote:
I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms
URL(s)?

How about
<http://www.google.com.gr/webhp?hl=el&oe=ISO-8859-7>
or other search engines listed at
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/greek.html#search_engines>
?
on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.


What is "erroneous text"?

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #6

"Andreas Prilop" <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0410151601130.8080-100000@s5b004...
On 14 Oct 2004, alexdoulou wrote:
I am trying to type greek fonts into common html forms
URL(s)?

How about
<http://www.google.com.gr/webhp?hl=el&oe=ISO-8859-7>
or other search engines listed at
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/greek.html#search_engines>
?
on the Internet
explorer but erroneous text is being typed instead of clear greek.


What is "erroneous text"?

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?


Ummm...
Bottom-posting. Yuck.
I can't stand it. It serves no useful purpose and I already read the replied-to poster's response why do I need to
see it again? Yuck!!!

I do it because I'd rather not have to put up with the complaints. Not because it serves any useful purpose.
To me it's like "The World is Flat...Can't you tell? Now if you say it's Round one more time we are going to have to sic the mad dogs of Pakistan after you. So stop."


--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #7
George Hester wrote:
Bottom-posting. Yuck. I can't stand it.
You're not just trolling, are you?
I do it because I'd rather not have to put up with the complaints.
Not because it serves any useful purpose. To me it's like "The World
is Flat...


Not by a long shot. "The world is flat" is a statement of fact that can
be demonstrated true or false by conducting experiments.

"Please do not top post" is a request to follow the conventions of a
forum. It has nothing to do with fact or fiction.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #8

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:kW**************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
George Hester wrote:
Bottom-posting. Yuck. I can't stand it.


You're not just trolling, are you?
I do it because I'd rather not have to put up with the complaints.
Not because it serves any useful purpose. To me it's like "The World
is Flat...


Not by a long shot. "The world is flat" is a statement of fact that can
be demonstrated true or false by conducting experiments.

"Please do not top post" is a request to follow the conventions of a
forum. It has nothing to do with fact or fiction.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)


Fact is it upsets people. Fact is I don't like it. Fact is trolling or not I was responding to his post. Fact is the world is Flat no matter what science says. Galileo "showed" mass didn't matter for the speed of free falling bodies in Earth's gravitational field. Fact is nobody cared. They knew bigger objects fell faster.

So facts have no bearing on this matter. What matters is someone or something decided that bottom posting was the way top go and all the little lemmings piled onto it and now if some of us don't want to jump off the cliff like everyone else we generate anger. Galileo experienced that.

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #9
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:03:19 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Fact is it upsets people. Fact is I don't like it. Fact is trolling or
not I was responding to his post. Fact is the world is Flat no matter
what science says. Galileo "showed" mass didn't matter for the speed of
free falling bodies in Earth's gravitational field. Fact is nobody
cared. They knew bigger objects fell faster.

So facts have no bearing on this matter. What matters is someone or
something decided that bottom posting was the way top go and all the
little lemmings piled onto it and now if some of us don't want to jump
off the cliff like everyone else we generate anger. Galileo experienced
that.


Bottom posting with trimming excess quoted material is preferred because:

1) It puts the responses to statements in a readable, conversational order

2) It enables the user to read what came before so they can have context
for what the post is about. Remember, not all posts thread easily in
Usenet - we must leafe a trail or our posts won't be understood.

Certainly if we read from bottom to top as a rule, top-posting would make
sense. But get over the misconception that someone arbitrarily said one
day, "We're all going to post on the bottom." If you know anything about
Usenet, you know nothing happens that way here.

Bottom-posting and trimming are a convention because many people see a
value in it when discussing topics such as HTML. In the My Little Pony
newsgroup, it might not be as important, and you can go with whatever's
allowed.

But there's one fact you left off your list - fact is, we use bottom
posting here, and whining isn't going to change it.
Jul 23 '05 #10
"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op**************@news.individual.net...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:03:19 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
wrote: Bottom posting with trimming excess quoted material is preferred because:

1) It puts the responses to statements in a readable, conversational order

2) It enables the user to read what came before so they can have context
for what the post is about. Remember, not all posts thread easily in
Usenet - we must leafe a trail or our posts won't be understood.

Certainly if we read from bottom to top as a rule, top-posting would make
sense. But get over the misconception that someone arbitrarily said one
day, "We're all going to post on the bottom." If you know anything about
Usenet, you know nothing happens that way here.

Bottom-posting and trimming are a convention because many people see a
value in it when discussing topics such as HTML. In the My Little Pony
newsgroup, it might not be as important, and you can go with whatever's
allowed.

But there's one fact you left off your list - fact is, we use bottom
posting here, and whining isn't going to change it.


Whining is what you hear. I hear disagreement with this convention. It's as simple as that. I only do it to keep those that demand it from going balistic. If there is some benefit to it your attempt to explain it was admirable. Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World. We are in the 21st Century you know. And what was beneficial in ancient times may no longer be. But of course that's whining so I'll bow out. Cu.

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #11
In article <QQ*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World.


We? You mean, others build the world to what it is and you decided one
day to come along and conveniantly claim you participated in that.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 23 '05 #12
George Hester wrote:
George Hester wrote:

Bottom-posting. Yuck. I can't stand it.


Fact is it upsets people.


You mean it upsets you. Poor thing.
Fact is the world is Flat no matter what science says.
Erm...
Galileo "showed" mass didn't matter for the speed of free falling
bodies in Earth's gravitational field. Fact is nobody cared. They
knew bigger objects fell faster.
Erm, well, no, they don't. That was sort of the point.
What matters is someone or something decided that bottom posting was
the way top go and all the little lemmings piled onto it and now if
some of us don't want to jump off the cliff like everyone else we
generate anger. Galileo experienced that.


So, you're being persecuted like Galileo was? Have you been placed under
house arrest by the inline post police? That's simply terrible. Call
Amnesty International; maybe they'll take up your case.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #13
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Zw*****************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
George Hester wrote:

You mean it upsets you. Poor thing.

Galileo "showed" mass didn't matter for the speed of free falling
bodies in Earth's gravitational field. Fact is nobody cared. They
knew bigger objects fell faster.


Erm, well, no, they don't. That was sort of the point.


So, you're being persecuted like Galileo was? Have you been placed under
house arrest by the inline post police? That's simply terrible. Call
Amnesty International; maybe they'll take up your case.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)


maybe. The point is when users get it in their craw that doing something should be done and when it's not they get angry is similar to what happened to Galileo. If he had just went along with the people who made the rules he would have been a happy camper. He didn't generated anger and that's the end of it. It took a few more years before the people had to grudgingly accept the inevitable.

Notice how even discussing this issue brings out the snide remarks. What afinity you all must have with this practice. For those that find it irritating it's like oh you "poor thing."

George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #14
"Kris" <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message news:kr*****************************@news1.news.xs 4all.nl...
In article <QQ*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World.


We? You mean, others build the world to what it is and you decided one
day to come along and conveniantly claim you participated in that.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)


Did I? Hmph interesting. I don't like bottom posting and by virtue of that I made the electron microscope?
I have moved into the Modern World. And as far as I know my only contribution to that was being born.
Of course Top posters don't deserve to have been born. Understood but that's "The Way of The World."

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #15
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Kris wrote:
We? You mean, others build the world to what it is and you decided
one day to come along and conveniantly claim you participated in
that.


"The mouse pissed in the ocean, and cried 'I helped to make it' "
(I'm assured that it's an old Albanian proverb).
Jul 23 '05 #16
George Hester wrote:
"Brian"...

So, you're being persecuted like Galileo was? Have you been placed
under house arrest by the inline post police?

The point is when users get it in their craw that doing something
should be done and when it's not they get angry is similar to what
happened to Galileo.

I'm sorry, but comparing yourself to Galileo is simply too rediculous.

*plonk*

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #17
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:39:39 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Did I? Hmph interesting. I don't like bottom posting and by virtue of
that I made the electron microscope?
I have moved into the Modern World. And as far as I know my only
contribution to that was being born.
Of course Top posters don't deserve to have been born. Understood but
that's "The Way of The World."


You are either totally self-absorbed or a very humorous troll.

I shall end this here.

Jul 23 '05 #18
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, George Hester wrote:
How about
<http://www.google.com.gr/webhp?hl=el&oe=ISO-8859-7>

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?


Ummm...
Bottom-posting. Yuck.
I can't stand it. It serves no useful purpose and I already read the replied-to poster's response why do I need to
see it again? Yuck!!!


Where you successful in searching Greek text with the above URL?
For example,
<http://google.com.gr/search?ie=ISO-8859-7&oe=ISO-8859-7&q=%E7%EB%DF%E8%E9%E5>
should display fine in Netscape 4.x and Internet Explorer.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #19
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QQ*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Whining is what you hear. I hear disagreement with this convention.
It's as simple as that. I only do it to keep those that demand it from
going balistic. If there is some benefit to it your attempt to explain
it was admirable. Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World. We
are in the 21st Century you know. And what was beneficial in ancient
times may no longer be. But of course that's whining so I'll bow out.


I've got some discussion of the quoting issue in my site, where I try
to be reasonably balanced despite my dislike of top-posters:

http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/

--
Dan
Jul 23 '05 #20
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:aa**************************@posting.google.c om...
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QQ*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Whining is what you hear. I hear disagreement with this convention.
It's as simple as that. I only do it to keep those that demand it from
going balistic. If there is some benefit to it your attempt to explain
it was admirable. Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World. We
are in the 21st Century you know. And what was beneficial in ancient
times may no longer be. But of course that's whining so I'll bow out.


I've got some discussion of the quoting issue in my site, where I try
to be reasonably balanced despite my dislike of top-posters:

http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/

--
Dan


Dan,
you know if I could just set Outlook Express to use bottom posting I would for those who like it. Currently reading what you have to see what my options are. I still don't like it but I dislike upsetting people here more. Thanks fot that link. It was refreshing not to be lynched for once on this issue.

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #21
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message news:TE*****************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
George Hester wrote:
"Brian"...

So, you're being persecuted like Galileo was? Have you been placed
under house arrest by the inline post police?



The point is when users get it in their craw that doing something
should be done and when it's not they get angry is similar to what
happened to Galileo.



I'm sorry, but comparing yourself to Galileo is simply too rediculous.

*plonk*

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)


See Brian. You couldn't even recognize I was not comparing myself to Galileo. I was comparing you to those he was battling. People like you are like those he was battling. I am not Galieo I am the brunt of your derision like he was the brunt of their derision.. Sorry if that is too complicated. I tried..
Jul 23 '05 #22
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:aa**************************@posting.google.c om...
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QQ*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Whining is what you hear. I hear disagreement with this convention.
It's as simple as that. I only do it to keep those that demand it from
going balistic. If there is some benefit to it your attempt to explain
it was admirable. Trouble is we have moved into the Modern World. We
are in the 21st Century you know. And what was beneficial in ancient
times may no longer be. But of course that's whining so I'll bow out.


I've got some discussion of the quoting issue in my site, where I try
to be reasonably balanced despite my dislike of top-posters:

http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/

--
Dan


Your Analog magazine section almost had me there. But here is the difference. The magazine HAD to include what was written they were responding to because they could not count on the letter being previously read even if they had published it without a response. They had no choice in the matter. And in that regard it looks better. I agree bottom-posting is better there.

But we here DO have what was written before. If someone writes a response to a post we need only look at it if we haven't read it already. Now I understand that on the Web these newsgroup postings can be difficuilt to follow and yes interleaved quoting does help. Replying in the Top would really achieve the same thing. Replying at Bottom makes me wonder when the poster's stuff is going to appear. Posting at Top it's obvious when it appears and I can tell when he\she ends and ipsofacto what follows is what is being responded to. That is not so clear in Bottom posting. At least not to me.

Yes the ads stuff is an issue. Bottom posting would make that more bearable. I have to grant you that one. It's a tie now.

So yes we each have pros and cons. I really don't care about it all that much. If someone bottom posts or top posts I adjust. It's just that it takes ALOT of work for me to adhust to bottom posting advocates. I mean alot. Sure I could change my client but why? I bought this machine for myself not to make others happy. Except those that come to my website but that's a different issue altogether.

Anyway Daniel thank you for a sober analysis of this issue.

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #23
"George Hester" <he********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a6*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

Your Analog magazine section almost had me there. But here is the

But we here DO have what was written before. If someone writes a

Yes the ads stuff is an issue. Bottom posting would make that more

So yes we each have pros and cons. I really don't care about it all

Anyway Daniel thank you for a sober analysis of this issue.


Please fix your newsreader, so that it hard-wraps long lines of text.
Jul 23 '05 #24
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:37:58 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
It's just that it takes ALOT of work for me to adhust to bottom posting
advocates.


http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #25
"Mark Parnell" <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message news:1n*****************************@40tude.net...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:37:58 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
It's just that it takes ALOT of work for me to adhust to bottom posting
advocates.


http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/oe/ doesn't have this problem.

See what I mean ALOT of work. Sorry.

--
George Hester
__________________________________
Jul 23 '05 #26
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:48:15 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mark Parnell" wrote:
George Hester wrote:
> It's just that it takes ALOT of work for me to adhust to bottom

posting
> advocates.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/oe/ doesn't have this problem.
See what I mean ALOT of work. Sorry.


I give up. Ypou sound more like George Bush. "It's HARD WORK being able to
post the way everyone else seems to have no trouble with."

Fuck him, and plonk you.
Jul 23 '05 #27
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:48:15 GMT, George Hester <he********@hotmail.com>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/oe/ doesn't have this problem.
What problem? Top posting by default? Yes it does. The program I posted
the link to _fixes_ OE's broken quoting.

And yes, even Microsoft know that it is broken:

"When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it
down to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response
should appear below the quoted information.
In follow-ups, whether News or Mail, CUT headers & signatures, PRUNE
quotations, and preserve order. That is to say, quote above each
part of your reply as much of the earlier stuff as is needed to put
the new material in context, but no more; most readers will be able
to refer to the earlier article itself, if need be. Never write on
the same line as a quotation, except in lists and notes; generally
leave a wholly blank line between. Do not quote the header or the
signature, unless it is relevant to do so."

http://web.archive.org/web/200212132...p_document.htm
See what I mean ALOT of work.


What, download and install a program that does it for you (and even
allows you to keep using OE)? Hardly.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by interuser | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.