Antoine Leca wrote:
> Hmmm. Writing from top of my head (which is *not* the good
> way to go in such a list), I understood that Unicode was
> the default character set, [...]
You are right (see http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTML-charset.html).
> OTOH, I believe that for upward compatibility, the default
> encoding [...] is supposed to be iso-8859-1, [...]
I was wrong, and you are right for HTML as served HTTP 1.1. The current
trend is that HTML has no default encoding (see
http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset.html) so, yes, the meta tag
should always be there in a decent page.
> Well, with current generation browsers (IE5 or Netscape 6),
> it can even work with a font for Japanese and a different
> font for Turkish.
Right, using language tagging within the document
(http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTML-tags.html).
> Yes, but wouldn't it be a very good idea to resume these
> answers in some FAQ at Unicode (or W3C) site, [...]
But it is much easier to bang out inaccurate answers from one's memory :-(
Sorry for having been careless one more time.
W3C has than nice section I've been mentioning so far
(http://www.w3.org/International/).
Unicode has a FAQ (http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/), a technical
introduction (http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/principles.html), and
a glossary (http://www.unicode.org/glossary/index.html). Probably the
Unicode FAQ should be updated periodically with questions asked on *this*
list, such as problems authoring web pages, selecting fonts, etc.
Among independent documentation, I would cite at least Roman Czyborra's site
(http://www.czyborra.com/), that is remarkably informative.
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:05 EDT