W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: Euro

From: Donald Page <donaldp@sco.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:58:19 +0100 (BST)
To: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
cc: Unicode Discussion <unicode@unicode.org>, www-international@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SCO.3.96.971022085251.7308G-100000@caspio.london.sco.com>
I'm sorry if my tone was a bit out of sorts - I wasn't in a good mood
yesterday.  Your Unicode browser deals no better with the Euro symbol than
any other browser - today neither of them have the correct glyph to
display the character and both will need configuring to work correctly.

If I wish to make lynx work, the configuration is trivial.  I add my
ISO8859-0 font to my system and configure xterm to use it - end of story.

If I wish netscape to use it, I select the option to change the default
fonts to use - having added them in the same way as for xterm to the
system.  Again, it will just work - end of story.

Netscape builds its fonts up for Unicode from the existing fonts - it
would take a new release of Netscape to know where to pick up the glyph
for it do display it for Unicode.

These are the only two browsers I use, so I can't comment on any others.

Of course all of the above is for someone running UNIX :-)

Regards,
	Donald

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Misha Wolf wrote:

> John Wilcock wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:48:43 -0700 (PDT), Misha Wolf wrote:
> > >The current tally is:
> > >
> > >   Unicode-capable browsers : at least 4 (*)
> > >   Latin-0-capable browsers : 0
> > >
> > >   * NC 4.0, IE 4.0, Alis's Tango, Accent's Multilingual Mosaic
> > >
> > >Are you suggesting this ratio will, somehow, be reversed?
> > 
> > It may be, at least in the short term, since Latin-0 has the advantage
> > (in terms of ease of implementation) of being an *8-bit* character
> > set. 
> > 
> > Do you have a count for the number of browsers which can display 8-bit
> > ISO-8859-x encodings (where x <> 1), but not multi-octet encodings?
> > [I don't, but I expect that there are many]
> 
> I didn't bother responding to the person whose reply started with the 
> sentence: "Rubbish."  I will respond, briefly, to your mail.
> 
> It depends what you mean by "can display".  I work for a commercial 
> organisation.  Our clients use browsers for a living (as well as for fun).
> They don't have the time to mess about with trick fonts or to try each 
> entry on the browsers Encoding menu in order to read the page before them.
> The latest HTTP and HTML specs make it clear that browsers should be 
> informed, via HTTP or HTTP-EQUIV, of the charset of the page being served 
> up.  I listed four browsers which: (1) correctly interpret such 
> instructions, and (2) understand Unicode.  To my knowledge, none of them 
> understand the charset "ISO-8859-0".  If you know of one, please say so.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Misha Wolf            Email: misha.wolf@reuters.com     85 Fleet Street
>   Standards Manager     Voice: +44 171 542 6722           London EC4P 4AJ
>   Reuters Limited       Fax  : +44 171 542 8314           UK
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 12th International Unicode Conference, 8-9 Apr 1998, Tokyo, www.unicode.org
>    7th World Wide Web Conference, 14-18 Apr 1998, Brisbane, www7.conf.au
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender,
> except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
> Reuters Ltd.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 1997 04:22:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:48 GMT