From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 23:07:43 EST
From: "Roozbeh Pournader" <email@example.com>
> I agree, but the Unicode web age is the buggy thing here, not the
> browser that was reported earlier to have a problem with it. That's
> point. One should fix the Unicode web page instead of that browser.
If the problem was indeed due to a BOM then the answer *is* to fix the
browser. Windows 2000 and XP have shipped onto a gazillion machines
and a lot of people make quick spot changes to HTML pages in notepad.
The BOM is here and any browser that cannot handle not showing either
a BOM or a ZBNBSP can be classed as a dumb one.
But I am not convinced at the report, to tell you the truth. What kind
of a bug could possibly make a BOM become a Euro? Except for the
bandwidth that gets sucked up in these conversations that some ISPs
make money off of, that is. <grin>
> I also personally belive that any browser should fix the small
> made by the author (or the authoring software) in some way or other,
> isn't it better for the author not to make the mistake, or fix it
> finds about it?
Not really, not in this case. Because if you do not want it to be a
BOM then its a ZWNBSP. And its out there on the internet. A browser
cannot bury its head in the sand, and making it "illegal" will not
change anything at all except make more browsers non-conformant.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 00:05:30 EST