Reply-To: email@example.com ("Markus G. Kuhn")
From: "Unicode Discussion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 20:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
The user interface that I would prefer is:
1) Use Unicode numerical character references: ...
2) Use Unicode UTF-8: ...
3) Use only ISO Latin-1 characters: ...
4) Use native Windows character set (CP1252): ...
What happened to the idea of using named character entities, as in
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-entities? Someone did mention them,
but no notice seemed to be taken...
This set claims to include the extra characters from CP1252 (except
EURO); it certainly has the quotes that started the discussion.
I think this representation would be suitable as the default export
format of Windows HTML editors. Unlike the Unicode representations, it
probably works in some older Windows browsers(*), and it will also
work on non-Windows browsers once they start supporting Unicode fonts.
The best of all worlds, and no need to present the user with an
Of course, this representation will cause non-Windows users to see
quotes like “quoted stuff”, instead of ?quoted stuff? or
just quoted stuff (without quotes); but hopefully that will cause them
to complain until their systems get upgraded, instead of suing hapless
journalists for misrepresentation.
(BTW, "sbquo" for `single low-9 quotation mark' seems odd: Why not
"bsquo" when the others are "lsquo", "rsquo", "ldquo", "rdquo",
"bdquo". Perhaps "bsquo" is taken for something else in ISO 8879?)
Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <email@example.com> (Humour NOT marked)
(*) I regularly see † used in HTML converted from PDF (Cisco
online manuals, to be specific); Netscape (Navigator 3.01 Gold) on
UNIX just shows the string "†", but Windows browsers presumably
show the proper glyph --- if not, I imagine that Cisco would use
Ns3.01G also shows a question mark for unknown numeric character
references; this loses information, but it is still better than the
Windows-specific codepoints which it totally ignores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT