Kevin Bracey wrote:
>
> In message <200003250043.QAA27919@unicode.org>
> Chris Pratley <chrispr@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > And I don?t think getting
> ^ great demonstration of your software, btw :)
> > hardcore and disabling the current browser workaround of treating #128;
> > through #159; as windows-1252 is the right way either - it is just
> > frustrating and leads to a "buggy" experience for the end-user.
>
> But Microsoft could do it. Perhaps you could use your near-monopoly to push
> these sorts of things through? As long as Internet Explorer allows people
> to tag CP1252 as ISO-8859-1 all other browser authors will have to, or
> customers whinge that "it works on IE".
>
> Microsoft has the market position to enforce standards on the Web - people
> write their pages FOR Internet Explorer without realising that hundreds of
> other browsers exits. If IE wasn't so forgiving, the Web would be a lot
> cleaner.
>
> <cynicism> Of course, conforming to standards would just make it easier for
> other people to write browsers. </cynicism>
>
I heartily concur. Our mail clients are putting out the charsets specified in
RFCs, correctly labeled. Where there are int'l standards for the charset, we
are using them. There is no reason for MS tools to generate proprietary MS
chars/positions for emails and Web pages, or at the very least it would be nice
if the users were informed that they were using proprietary characters that
others may not be able to see, or worse, may cause severe problems for some
users.
Microsoft could use its power to enforce int'l standards. Yes, you are doing it
with Unicode, but in the meantime, it would be nice to repair the 1252
situation, instead of encouraging it.
Andrea
-- Andrea Vine, avine@eng.sun.com, iPlanet i18n architect ...even if it requires not really a dance with the Devil, but call it a brief shimmy with his accountant's daughter. -- Sean Burke http://www.netadventure.net/~sburke/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:00 EDT