W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [VE][139] New Error Message Suggestion

From: Scott R. Godin <scott.godin@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0405191432400.25697@pcp01723902pcs.univde01.de.comcast.net>

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Scott R. Godin wrote:
>> I'm afraid I don't understand.. you're saying that the entity &ndash; is
>> not part of ISO-8859-1 ?
> The character &ndash; represents is not, please have a look at
> <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/iso8859/isotable.html>.

Thanks Bjoern, appreciate your responses.

I'm mildly surprised that it is not, considering it's a bog-standard 
typographical mark.

I've experimented with the validator and decided on windows-1250 as per 
your earlier suggestion, and will look for other kark-ups (if any) that 
result from the change. Thanks again.

Why does this make me feel like I'm kowtowing to Microsoft (again)? :|

Why does this typographical mark work with the windows-specific charset, 
but none of the international ones? (not even part of UTF-8) *sigh*

... a moment or two passes while I do the triple-check thing ...

Interesting... wait... what????????!!?

ok, using the windows-1250 charset, some font-sizes on the site change; in 
particular the smallest fonts just got smaller, and the charset change was 
the ONLY change made. To double-check this, I altered it back to 
iso-8859-1 and tested again, and the small footer fonts are back to their 
normal chosen size.

This is viewing the site using the latest Mozilla Firefox browser on Red 
Hat Linux / Fedora Core 1.

pardon me for living, but isn't THAT something that shouldn't happen?

All the fonts on the site are selected and designated SOLELY in the CSS as 
'serif' or 'sans-serif' allowing the browser default to take charge unless 
the end-user has made their own preferences known.

I'm more confused now than before, but I'm not about to go back and rework 
all the fontsizes so I can live with windows-1250 (why does the fact that 
it drastically changes things not surprise me?) and have removed the 
offending if technically correct &ndash; entity and replaced it with the 
uglier but livable '--' double-dash.

There is no word in the dictionary to describe my disappointment, ladies 
and gents.

en- and em-dashes are bog-standard typographical measurements that are 
represented in CSS even (as ems) and why they are not part of a standard 
charset like iso-8859-1 is beyond me. UTF-8 failing to include this 
selfsame entity utterly floors me, jaws agape. The simple fact of its 
inclusion with the windows-1250 charset which oh by the way messes with my 
font-sizes, is par for the course with anything microsoft has touched so 
this surprises me not at all, although it disappoints.

it is my own personal and semi-professional opinion that the only way the 
exclusion of this entity slipped thru the cracks somehow is the utter 
lackadaisical support of early browsers for most character entities.

I would suggest something need be done regarding this, however I realize I 
am fighting years and years of inertia.


Laughing Dragon Services
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2004 16:32:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:41 UTC