at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding and now when I open html files in
HomeSite the code is all messed up, and if I turn on "enable non-ANSI
file encoding" code looks fine when I open files but I get this error
when I try to save them..

"The character set defined in your document does not match the
encoding format you selected in the Save As Dialog" (even though I
don't do Save As, just save..) and sometimes doesn't let me save them
at all (says "file cannot be created" or something like that..)

so: I think I need to get a new editor.. I know I could search google
and find a million editors out there, but was just wondering if anybody
here knows of an editor with which I won't have that problem (and editor
has to be good also for css, JavaScript, jsp's.. I don't use editors to
generate tags or anything like that, I hand-code everything, but well,
have to admit I've gotten a bit spoiled w/all that color-coding,
although that's not essential...;)

thank you..

Frances

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Frances wrote:
[color=blue]
> at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding and now when I open html files in
> HomeSite the code is all messed up,[/color]

UTF-16 is a poor choice for the WWW (at least currently).
Use UTF-8 instead:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Andreas Prilop wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Frances wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding and now when I open html files in
>>HomeSite the code is all messed up,[/color]
>
>
> UTF-16 is a poor choice for the WWW (at least currently).
> Use UTF-8 instead:
> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html[/color]

the reason we use UTF-16 is to enable characters in other languages..
not sure exactly how this works but this is what I've been told..

is there any editor that can handle this w/no problems? thank you..

In article <4305e649$0$18642$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Frances <fdr58@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> the reason we use UTF-16 is to enable characters in other languages..[/color]

UTF-8 can represent all the characters that UTF-16 can represent.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Frances wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> UTF-16 is a poor choice for the WWW (at least currently).
>> Use UTF-8 instead:
>> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html[/color]
>
> the reason we use UTF-16 is to enable characters in other languages..[/color]

UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32 encode *exactly* the same set of characters.
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html
[color=blue]
> not sure exactly how this works[/color]

http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...ilingual1.html

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Andreas Prilop wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Frances wrote:
>[color=green]
> > at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding[/color][/color]

utf-16 appears to be the native encoding used for unicode data in
MS-Windows operating systems and applications. However, it's
inappropriate for use on the WWW, where utf-8 could be an appropriate
choice if a unicode encoding scheme is required. As you said.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > and now when I open html files in
> > HomeSite the code is all messed up,[/color]
>
> UTF-16 is a poor choice for the WWW (at least currently).
> Use UTF-8 instead:
> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html[/color]

Indeed, but I think the hon Usenaut is really asking about a capable
file editor that's usable for web authoring. To be honest, I'd be
reluctant to offer advice on that in general - particularly as we
don't really know what meaning to assign to the original assertion "at
work we switched to UTF-16 encoding". Are no other encodings
permitted there? Do you have no means to convert between encodings?

For hand-coding, modern versions (e.g XP) of Notepad state the
following in their Help information:

You can save your Notepad files as Unicode, ANSI, UTF-8, or
big-endian Unicode. These formats provide you greater flexibility
when working with documents that use different character sets.

In WWW terms the phrase "different character sets" is totally
misleading, of course, since HTML only uses one character set. In WWW
terms, what the help file is trying to say is either "character
repertoire" or "character encoding", but I wouldn't care to guess
which.

By "Unicode" it means utf-16 encodings, as I understand it. But it
can also save as utf-8.

By "ANSI" they mean (well, we've done that hoax before - we have never
found any evidence that the American National Standards Inst. has ever
approved the proprietary Windows-125x encodings which MS persist in
calling ANSI).

best

Andreas Prilop wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Frances wrote:
>[color=green]
>>at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding and now when I open html files in
>>HomeSite the code is all messed up,[/color]
>
> UTF-16 is a poor choice for the WWW (at least currently).
> Use UTF-8 instead:
> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html[/color]

thank you all for insightful responses.. just wanted to clarify that
when I said "different languages" I didn't mean just French, German, and
such, but Chinese, etc.. and: this is not in general for all our www
stuff, it's actually for data CD's we burn for our clients and not for
our stuff on our webservers.. thank you again..

Frances

Frances wrote:[color=blue]
> at work we switched to UTF-16 encoding and now when I open html files in
> HomeSite the code is all messed up, and if I turn on "enable non-ANSI
> file encoding" code looks fine when I open files but I get this error
> when I try to save them..
>
> "The character set defined in your document does not match the encoding
> format you selected in the Save As Dialog"[/color]

It sounds like there is conflict between the actual file encoding and
that which is declared in a meta element (or XML declaration for XHTML/XML).
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-16">

There are two possibilities:

1. The file really is encoded as UTF-16 (either BE or LE) and
the meta element declares something else. Or
2. The meta element declares UTF-16, but
the file is not encoded as UTF-16. If this is the case, then you
need to understand that simply changing the charset declared in the
meta element doesn't change the character encoding of the file.
[color=blue]
> so: I think I need to get a new editor..[/color]

More likely, you just need to learn to use your editor and gain a better
understanding of Unicode. See this 3 part guide to unicode for more
information.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2004/12/guide-to-unicode-part-1

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:35:55 -0400, Frances wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think I need to get a new editor.. editor
> has to be good also for css, JavaScript, jsp's.. I don't use editors to
> generate tags or anything like that, I hand-code everything, but well,
> have to admit I've gotten a bit spoiled w/all that color-coding...[/color]

I use and recommend Bluefish <http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/>. It handles
all the different encodings I've thrown at it, is aware of CSS, JS, and so
forth, and even color codes. It is available for Linux and other *nixes.

If you're on Windows, beats me. For a client I had to find a good open
source HTML and CSS editor for Windows, and in the end I failed.

--
Warren Post
Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras
http://srcopan.vze.com/

Warren Post <wpost.nospam@hondutel.hn> in
news:pan.2005.08.19.23.21.20.703046@hondutel.hn:


[color=blue]
> If you're on Windows, beats me. For a client I had to find a good open
> source HTML and CSS editor for Windows, and in the end I failed.[/color]

1:
am using crimson editor syntax coloring for css, html, etc (ce chooses syntax set by file
extension of file being edited, but user can change coloring set in menu)

it's a little glitchy, but useful enough that i'm not using my usual editpadlite or metapad.

"spellcheck" is just a misspell marker. (as of now? or maybe i haven't found the hidden
cfg?)

there are other syntax coloring editors. eg, pspad... which i didn't try.. i can't recall what
dissuaded me.. possilby pspad uses java... i know i avoid .NET and java based ware.

2:
topstylelite by homesite's orig author, nick bradbury, is useful. lots of convnenices are cut
out of this "liteware" versoin. but what's there is useful for css,.
it "renders" using ie (i can tell, because mouse context commands from ie show in
topstylelite :-) )

the rendering cannot show nesting, because nesting occurs in your html file, not css file.
also some attribs don't render.
it has preselected element list, css1 css2 netscape6 mobile, ancient ie 4, etc.

unfortunatley no moz1.x (opacity for exmaple) set
that is currnet gecko rendering (firefox's ) category


3:
firefox with chrispederick's webdevloper xpi. http://www.google.com/search?q=chris-
pederick+web+developer+%7C+webdeveloper
commands to w3's css and html validators.. can add your own to the list of validatoin stuff
('stuff'' yeah, i'm QuasiNewbie, if you can't tell!)
some useful commands are not so obvious. show elements. show strucutre. show other
stuff ,,, size, img, atribs, imgs off,, etc
toggle those (can set commands to 'persits' through page relaods, while you fiddle wiht
something stubborn)

also i use googlebar or other search help xpi cause i'm googling for css info A LOT!

4:
cse validator freeware versoin
useful for speed and directly editalbe file as you scroll thru erros report. small nag at
shutdown.

5:
online: wdg validator


--------
rejects:
easycss 2003 (my breif tryout impressoin): sim to topstylelite, but less feature/lesser UI.

nvu. inscrutalby breaks *and* scrunches your exisiting code. wait to try next versoin. btw,
moz addons has a few nvu xpi, just edit the tail of the url
application=nvu

acehtml 5 (discontiued freeware ver)
fired it up but i think it was obnoxiously naggy.. somehting annoyed me immediatley..

CascadeDtp
tried, was immed wrong (don't recall what)

amaya-WinXP-9.2.1[12Jul05.exe
just not useful
editing window too small.. i cna't recall other limitatoins.. but ... the sum of other small
reasons added to "no".

layoutmaster recent relicware. free from westciv.
limited output. seems not useful once you already have basic layouts. (i'd already mangled
up some layouts when i 1st tried layoutmaster)



---
reject before download (non css or other reason given in posts)
CuneAform



---
not yet tried, but maybe...

Alleycode HTML Editor
(maybe, but html only?)

Selida2Setup.exe
may not try, seems output has problems.. (usenet posts)

css maguma
may try, though seems output has problems.. (usenet posts)


Top Dawg HTML Editor
(maybe, but html only?)

XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG Editor (FREE) .. standards-based WYSIWYG blah balh ..
webpage has silly blah blah long title
but wysiwyg may be useful.. not sure why i havne't tried.. just didn't get to it.. "xhtml" is
too close to the end of the alphabet :-) ha. not the reason..
if this app deosn't f0kk existng code, then the wysiwyg could be very useful, for draggin
and typing and pasting elements inot proper location. editing correct (intneded) locatoins
with text editors is onerously ambiguous. time-consuming

also have fp2000 as part of office 2k, but somehow it hasn't been useful... not worth using
again after poking at it numbers of times in last few years...

--

one of those, snapfiles or sofpedia, cna be set to filter for only freeware

---


i'm sure there's more.. you can report your research and tryouts here (i added xpost to
freeware group, since their msgs come up often googling this topic)