Hi,
After upgrading to Tiger I noticed that all CJK characters are now italicized in the title field. As I recall Bookends correctly did not italicize Chinese or Japanese characters in the past, even when the field (t) was italicized. Is this a bug, or am I missing something?
I also notice a large number of characters with diacritics in unicode are now just black diamonds with question marks ?. What has happened here? I guess these must all be manually corrected. Has anybody else had similar problems?
Kindest regards,
Shayne
Tiger problems
Chinese and Japanese are never--should never--appear in italics, and Bookends handled this fine until Tiger came along.
As for accented characters, most display fine and as far as I can tell all can be made to display fine, the problem is that I now have to manually redo a large part of the bibliograpy. I am not sure why, but it all started with the upgrade to Tiger.
Cheers,
Shayne
As for accented characters, most display fine and as far as I can tell all can be made to display fine, the problem is that I now have to manually redo a large part of the bibliograpy. I am not sure why, but it all started with the upgrade to Tiger.
Cheers,
Shayne
Well, this is something Bookends doesn't control, so I doubt I can do anything about it. But a quick test with Mellel and Word 2004 shows me that Asian characters (whether from Bookends or not) do not display in italics. So bibliographies, etc., that you create in Bookends should be fine when included with your papers. Try it youself and see...Shayne wrote:Chinese and Japanese are never--should never--appear in italics, and Bookends handled this fine until Tiger came along.
Jon
Sonny Software
Hi Jon,
You are right in that it does not seem to affect the bibliography, but something has certainly gone awry since Tiger. I presume that this could be solved if one was able to stop Bookends from faking italics. Could this be added as an option? Those who want to fake italics could still do so, but the rest of us could use fonts with italic typefaces--presumably this would stop Bookends from italicizing CJK.
Kindest regards,
Shayne
You are right in that it does not seem to affect the bibliography, but something has certainly gone awry since Tiger. I presume that this could be solved if one was able to stop Bookends from faking italics. Could this be added as an option? Those who want to fake italics could still do so, but the rest of us could use fonts with italic typefaces--presumably this would stop Bookends from italicizing CJK.
Kindest regards,
Shayne
Unless I am mistaken, however, Bookends did not italicize CJK in previous versions, at least not before Tiger came out. It may only be cosmetic, but it would be nice if whatever it was that prevented CJK from appearing in italics could be rediscovered.Jon wrote:Faking italics is cosmetic only -- it doesn't affect any functionality.
I wonder if this, and perhaps the diacritic problem, has something to do with the encoding. I notice that the preferences only seem to offer utf-16 encoding, but I think the previous versions had utf-8 and -16. Would this mess up a few diacritics?
Cheers,
Shayne
It looks like pre-Tiger the unicode chars did not reflect the style setting. In Tiger they do. Bookends doesn't control this, so I doubt it can be changed, but I'll see.
The preferences setting you are referring to has always been UTF-16. This is for storage only, and does not in any way affect the way text is displayed or manipulated. It's a "placeholder" preference, since at some point we will add UTF-8. This will ONLY affect the size of databases, though, nothing else. Otherwise, it is transparent to the user.
Jon
Sonny Software[/i]
The preferences setting you are referring to has always been UTF-16. This is for storage only, and does not in any way affect the way text is displayed or manipulated. It's a "placeholder" preference, since at some point we will add UTF-8. This will ONLY affect the size of databases, though, nothing else. Otherwise, it is transparent to the user.
Jon
Sonny Software[/i]
If it can be fixed, that would be fantastic.Jon wrote:It looks like pre-Tiger the unicode chars did not reflect the style setting. In Tiger they do. Bookends doesn't control this, so I doubt it can be changed, but I'll see.
My mistake--please accept my apologies.The preferences setting you are referring to has always been UTF-16.
Kindest regards,
Shayne