- 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
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 ’ for a right single quotation mark, > for example, you should, ’ (decimal) or ’ > (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 ’ 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 UTC