X-BeenThere: blacklight-development@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.34.9 with SMTP id j9ls2945583qcd.3.p; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 
	10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.92.195 with SMTP id s3mr973883qcm.29.1268673471671;
        Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.92.195 with SMTP id s3mr973882qcm.29.1268673471648;
        Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <prvs=rochkind=683a9c...@jhu.edu>
Received: from ipex4.johnshopkins.edu (ipex4.johnshopkins.edu [128.220.161.141])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si630320qyk.11.2010.03.15.10.17.51;
        Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.220.161.141 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of prvs=rochkind=683a9c...@jhu.edu) client-ip=128.220.161.141;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 128.220.161.141 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of prvs=rochkind=683a9c...@jhu.edu) smtp.mail=prvs=rochkind=683a9c...@jhu.edu
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,644,1262581200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="345359202"
Received: from sys10.staff.ad.mse.jhu.edu (HELO [128.220.205.186]) ([128.220.205.186])
  by ipex4.johnshopkins.edu with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Mar 2010 13:17:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4B9E6BBF.6040202@jhu.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:17:51 -0400
From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "blacklight-development@googlegroups.com" <blacklight-development@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Blacklight-development] Implementers with non-roman script needs
References: <A6636464A9FAC44DB2716F979AD7E593040269C3@EXCLUSTER.pu.win.princeton.edu> <4B9E53A0.6060400@jhu.edu> <4B9E6AE6.7080903@virginia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B9E6AE6.7080903@virginia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Haschart wrote:
> and Jonathan,
>
> We have what might be the same problem with Korean script here at UVa, 
> and we are fairly certain that it is a font issue for the 
> browser/machine in question. 

This is interseting, but the weird thing for me is that Korean 
characters DO show fine in the same Firefox browser looking at my legacy 
OPAC.  So why is that same browser not able to display them when they 
come out of BL?   Somehow the unicode being output by my legacy OPAC is 
different, and displayable by the browser, but the unicode coming out of 
my BL is not? Very odd.