- From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:11:32 +0100
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
From: cyril2@newmail.ru [SMTP:cyril2@newmail.ru] << File: SymbName.html >> << File: MultLang.png >> << File: MultLang.gif >> [DJW:] Please post plain text. Amongst other things attachments require specific hygiene measures. It is seems that my thoughts flow this way. If HTML-language is based on US-ASCII-text then it is quite HTML-ly to make ability to express everything in HTML with US-ASCII-characters. [DJW:] HTML is based on Unicode, with ISO 8859/1 as the default HTTP transfer encoding; it is not based on ASCII. Any Unicode character can already be respresented by either using a UTFx transfer encoding## or using numeric entities; software that deals with international characters should always reduce HTML to Unicode before processing it (including treating £ as equivalent to £ or even £ or simply £.++ [DJW:] In addition, I find it convenient when a World Wide Web character could have an optional language attribute. For example like this: <html lang="fr"> It was introduced more than three years ago and is widely ignored even though one is advised to always use it on the html element (it is this sort of ignoring of features that makes your <dynamic> proposal unworkable). ++ Note that it is common to misconfigure browsers in Russia China, etc. to assume that the HTTP transfer coding is the local preferred coding and then server pages with no coding specified. ## Or a specific regional character coding that covers the required characters. -- --------------------------- DISCLAIMER --------------------------------- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 07:12:26 UTC