preferred charset?

[Jane Withnolastname]

I have been using the charset windows-1252 for a while, but it was
pointed out to someone else in this group recently that it's a
Microsoft creation (I'm sure I'm getting my facts wrong or skewed) and
therefore not good for cross-platform browsing.
Anyway, I am beginning my road to recovery (ie, breaking my addiction
to authoring only for IE) and I would like to know what is the
preferred charset?
I have tried a search and only find immense lists that make me
cross-eyed without ever telling me which to use to utilize a full
range of characters and have them display the way I intend on
English-speaking machines.
I'm not sure of the proper term, but I always use the & character
substitutes for anything that doesn't show up on my keyboard so,
ideally, the charset should display those, right? (For instance, if I
want to display Montréal, I would input Montréal .)
Thanks!

[Andreas Prilop]

Jane Withnolastname <Ja************ **********@yaho o.com> wrote:

OK, it's a general-use site aimed
at an English-speaking audience that may, at some time or another,
need to use non-English characters, such as é or ç.
If I understand correctly, this ISO charset will allow me to simply
input é and it will display correctly in all browsers?
Yes - assuming you mean ISO-8859-1.
Someone questioned my saying that entity rather than number was the
preferred method.
You can write é or &eacute; or é .
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...cklist.html#s2
Well, it's what I read on this newsgroup only a few
days ago, when someone was asking about the Euro character.
It's "euro", not "Euro" - same with "dollar" and "pound".
The person
had said that it was written with the numerical identifier and was
advised to change it to the entity.
Probably because he used the _incorrect_ reference € which is
in fact undefined. The euro sign is _not_ included in ISO-8859-1;
therefore the situation is a bit different than with é .
I apologize for apparently having no idea that ASCII stopped at 127.

Many people don't know this. Even the Google Directory (too bad!)
<http://directory.googl e.com/Top/Science/Reference/Standards/Individual_Stan dards/ISO_646/>
<http://dmoz.org/Science/Reference/Standards/Individual_Stan dards/ISO_646/>
lists one reference that is complete bullshit.

--
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/plonk.txt

[Brian]

Brian wrote:

But how many layers of attributions should be left there? In long
threads, I sometimes see 4 or more layers of attributions at the top

Kindly note that I only just saw the "how to quote" thread in ciwa-
stylesheets. Had I known it was there, I would not have introduced it
here. Feel free to respond here, or not, as you see fit.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Stan Brown]

In article <tNK3b.222909$c F.73323@rwcrnsc 53> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Brian
<us*****@mangym utt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

But how many layers of attributions should be left there?

Exactly as many as there are layers of quoted text, no more and no
less.

If you're getting too many layers of attributions, you're probably
quoting too much and should trim it down. (I don't mean you in
particular; it's the universal "you".)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/