À 15:54 2000-02-09 -0800, Erik van der Poel a écrit:
> > I prefer a clean solution but if I
> > have the choice of quick-and-dirty flavours, I prefer to assume that
> > the bad coding assumes 8869-15 than a character set that can't get in
> > on environemnts which use the C1 space for controls.
>Do you have a problem with C1 in HTML over HTTP? Or are you referring to
I don't know about browsers (we don't use it in a mainframe environment),
but sure for email. If browsers are used in an EBCDIC system, it can't
work, it is technically impossible, all 64 controls are used in an
IBM mainframe environment, which can't hadle a repertoire bigger than the
ones used in the ISO/IEC 8859 series.
> > > I believe that the best short-term solution for the euro in HTML is
> > > to use 0x80 with the "windows-1252" label.
> > This solution does not worl in Unix environment or on
> > mainframes and interacts badly with Mac software. So I don't share
> > your belief because it is a proble and it will continue for a while.
>Yes, this problem will continue for a while, until the Mac, Unix and
>mainframe users start using modern browsers that can handle
It can't work on an IBM EBCDIC mainframe environment for more than 191
graphic characters, whence ISO/IEC 8859-15 repertoire, which can then be
mapped both ways.
> But many users are using Windows right now, and many of
>the users that need the euro glyph have it on their systems. So, from a
>Web site's point of view, 0x80 in windows-1252 caters to the largest
>number of users.
There is the EURO sign, 3 additional essential French characters out of
Latin 1, and 4 Finnish letters more too, to cater with.
Si votre email etait sur iFrance vous pourriez ecouter ce message au tel !
http://www.ifrance.com : ne laissez plus vos emails loin de vous ...
gratuit sur iFrance : emails (20 MO, POP, FAX), Agenda, Site perso
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT