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

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

From: Haas, Chris <ChrisH@ovationadvertising.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:42:22 -0500
Message-ID: <094721FC9768F64D815197E77BFD8B7301189B4A@mail.ovationmarketing.com>
To: <www-validator@w3.org>

I wonder if you're experiencing problems from the quirk mode that most
browsers have. You can read more here:

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott R. Godin [mailto:scott.godin@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:33 PM
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: [VE][139] New Error Message Suggestion

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

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 16:43:32 UTC

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