Kathleen Anderson: > Could someone explain, in layperson's terms, if using <meta > http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> is > preferred over <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; > charset=windows-1252"> Yes. > If so, why? "iso-8859-1" is, as the name shows, an ISO standard, while "windows-1252" is, as the name indicates, a Microsoft thingy. On the web, where the clients could be on any system, not necessarily Windows, a standard code is to be preferred. In reality windows-1252 has very wide support even outside of Microsoft products, but iso-8859-1, being actually a subset of windows-1252, has even more support, and is thus a safer bet. Actually coding anything outside of ASCII as "&#decimal_number;" and declaring the "charset" as "utf-8", preferrably in the http-header, is the safest bet of all. That can hardly fail at all. (The "utf-8" declaration is not really necessary, but it will help circumvent bugs in Netscape 4, and it is not wrong.) ##################################################################### Bertilo Wennergren <http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo> <bertilow@chello.se> #####################################################################Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 12:48:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:20 UTC