Slightly off-topic question

[Harris Kosmidhs]

Ok sorry for the off-topic question.

I see a lot of people posting their html code here.
Why so many people still use iso-8859-X instead of UTF8? Is there a
particular reason?

For my latest develops (web pages in greek) I always use utf8 both in
html&DB. Isn't that the right thing to do?

again sorry for the off-topic question

[K A Nuttall]

Harris Kosmidhs wrote:

I see a lot of people posting their html code here.
Why so many people still use iso-8859-X instead of UTF8? Is there
a particular reason?

Laziness, in my case. Dreamweaver uses 8859-1 by default. I only
changed it recently, when I found out more about 8859 and UTF, and also
found out that it was relatively easy to change Dreamweaver's default
too.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Harris Kosmidhs:

Ok sorry for the off-topic question.

You are not excused. Learn how to find the right group and how to write
meaningful Subject lines. "Off-topic" doesn't belong there; either your
message is on-topic, or it should not be sent.

I see a lot of people posting their html code here.

That's a mistake, as the regulars regularly explain, except perhaps in
hopeless cases.

Why so many people still use iso-8859-X instead of UTF8? Is there a
particular reason?

It doesn't matter from the CSS perspective, since CSS should normally use
only ASCII characters anyway, to be on the safe side. CSS is normally not
viewed by users who visit web pages, so there's no compelling reason to
localize it.

again sorry for the off-topic question

Stop babbling that. It doesn't make the off-topic posting any better.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

On 2006-12-22, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote:
[snip]

>Why so many people still use iso-8859-X instead of UTF8? Is there a
particular reason?

It doesn't matter from the CSS perspective, since CSS should normally use
only ASCII characters anyway, to be on the safe side. CSS is normally not
viewed by users who visit web pages, so there's no compelling reason to
localize it.

What about values of the content property (used with the :before and
:after pseudos)?

You might need those in Arabic, Chinese, etc.

I'm guessing that content language and encoding should be delivered for
CSS files in the server headers in just the same way as for HTML and
script files.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

What about values of the content property (used with the :before and

>after pseudos)?

Their usefulness in WWW authoring is very limited, due to lack of any
widespread support.

You might need those in Arabic, Chinese, etc.

Might I? I doubt that. But even then, the strings would typically be short,
e.g. specifying quotation marks or markers or whatever, and using the \u...
escapes I could still have the CSS code written in ASCII only.

I'm guessing that content language and encoding should be delivered
for CSS files in the server headers in just the same way as for HTML
and script files.

Content language is immaterial. Encoding is specified, if needed, in HTTP
headers as for any other subtype of text. The rest is a sad story of
confused guesswork, but we don't need to let things go there, do we?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

On 2006-12-22, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit Ben C:

[snip]

>I'm guessing that content language and encoding should be delivered
for CSS files in the server headers in just the same way as for HTML
and script files.

Content language is immaterial.

For CSS files, yes; for HTML documents it influences font selection, and
it would be nice if more webservers delivered the Content-language
header so browsers didn't have to guess the language from the encoding
or from the actual characters present (or various other tricks).

[David Dorward]

Ben C wrote:

For CSS files, yes; for HTML documents it influences font selection, and
it would be nice if more webservers delivered the Content-language
header so browsers didn't have to guess the language from the encoding
or from the actual characters present (or various other tricks).

The content-language header just describes the primary language of the
intended audience. The HTML lang attribute describes the language the
document is actually written in.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/ <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

>Content language is immaterial.

For CSS files, yes;

Which is what we discuss here.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

On 2006-12-23, David Dorward <do*****@yahoo. comwrote:

Ben C wrote:

>For CSS files, yes; for HTML documents it influences font selection, and
it would be nice if more webservers delivered the Content-language
header so browsers didn't have to guess the language from the encoding
or from the actual characters present (or various other tricks).

The content-language header just describes the primary language of the
intended audience. The HTML lang attribute describes the language the
document is actually written in.

That too, yes, but if there's no lang attribute, the Content-language
header is also a good place to look.

[David Dorward]

Ben C wrote:

>The content-language header just describes the primary language of the
intended audience. The HTML lang attribute describes the language the
document is actually written in.

That too, yes, but if there's no lang attribute, the Content-language
header is also a good place to look.

Not that good, just because a document is written for people who's primary
language is English doesn't mean that the document is written in English.

.... and if an author has failed to use the lang attribute, how could the
Content-Language header be trustworthy? Its much harder to set up.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/ <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is