From: Martin Duerst (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2006 - 01:15:16 CST
Many thanks for your detailled checks. The page has been fixed
in the meantime, but some comments below.
At 17:17 06/11/23, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Martin Duerst wrote:
>> Yes. The W3C site has quite a lot of these, too, even if they are
>> fortunately usually limited to single characters such as the copyright
>> sign. Here's an example:
>That page is a somewhat different case. There's more than the copyright sign that is wrong there, namely the registered sign and two occurrences of e with acute (in the name "Jos$Bq(B), too. Moreover, the page says
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
> <meta http-equiv="content-type"
> content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" />
>but what really matters is the HTTP header
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
>If you manually change the encoding used by a browser to UTF-8, the $Bq(Bs become right and the two other non-ASCII characters become a little less
>obscured by extra characters before them. There _is_ a "double UTF-8" involved, too, but the primary problem is that the declared encoding
>is not the one actually used on the page.
Well, put in other words, that page is on it's way to more "double UTF-8"
encoding. It gets downloaded as iso-8859-1 and uploaded as utf-8. Every time
that's done, potentially another "double UTF-8" is added (or to be precise,
we move from "double UTF-8" to "triple UTF-8" and so on). If different parts
have been added at different stages, then they will be more or less overencoded.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 27 2006 - 17:04:53 CST