W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2005

(unknown charset) Re: [VE][410] Error Message Feedback

From: (unknown charset) Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 01:12:37 +0100
To: (unknown charset) www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <437684F5.7E86@xyzzy.claranet.de>

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Rubbish.  Windows-1252 is not recommended /because/ it is not
> supported by the occasional old browser.

My favourite browser can handle windows-1252 (unlike UTF-8),
and the validator can also handle it.  It's certainly much
better than "Latin-0".  JFTR, I don't use an MS O/S.

> newer browsers on other systems have probably been forced to
> support it anyway

Wasting 32 (12.5%) of 256 available code points for historical
control codes like 8859-1 isn't attractive, when windows-1252
is identical for the other 256-32=224 code points, losing only
5 instead of 32 code points to lala-land.

The best available charset if you need one or more of these 27
"bonus characters" (in relation to Latin-1), but don't want
UTF-8 for some reasons.

> Instead of using &#146; for a right single quotation mark,
> for example, you should, &#8217; (decimal) or &#x2019;
> (hexadecimal).

For windows-1252 the byte "" (decimal 146) is all he needs.
It makes no sense to declare windows-1252 without using one
or more of its 27 characters in the range 128..159 directly:

If he uses &#8217; etc. for these 27=32-5 characters it's
better to declare iso-8859-1 instead of windows-1252.  Bye
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2005 00:20:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:20 GMT