By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,446 Members | 1,185 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,446 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

ISO-8859-15 vs. ISO-8859-1 ?

P: n/a
Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
This gains the Euro symbol, but obviously loses the sign (and a few
other less useful symbols)

Jan 26 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
This gains the Euro symbol, but obviously loses the £ sign (and a few
other less useful symbols)
The pound symbol "£" is in both ISO-8859-1 and ISO-8859-15. The Euro
symbol "€" in ISO-8859-15 replaces the currency symbol "¤" that is in
ISO-8859-1.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
Jan 26 '07 #2

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
ISO-8859-15 was before it was born.
This gains the Euro symbol, but obviously loses the sign (and a few
other less useful symbols)
If you only need "Euro" then use the ISO 3-letter currency code "EUR"
which is very well known around the whole world, and is usable in nearly
all encodings.

I am not a friend of MS, but Windows-1252 has the Euro symbol, and
avoids the disadvantages of ISO-8859-15.

You should use UNICODE/UTF-8 or decimal entities:
U+20AC EURO SIGN
UTF-8: 0xE2 0x82 0xAC
decimal entity: €

Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Jan 26 '07 #3

P: n/a
In article <11*********************@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups. com>,
"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
Yes.

* It is harmful for sniffers that assume content to be in one of
US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, Windows-1252 or UTF-8.

* There are legacy browsers that support ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 but don't
support ISO-8859-15.

Please use UTF-8 instead. ISO-8859-15 is a politically motivated
technical error and anachronism.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Jan 26 '07 #4

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
>Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
This gains the Euro symbol, but obviously loses the sign (and a few
other less useful symbols)
Characters (in the upper region) move around. That's a big gotcha.

--
Bart.
Jan 27 '07 #5

P: n/a
Scripsit Bart Lateur:
>Are there any non-obvious gotchas to using ISO-8859-15 as a page
encoding rather than ISO-8859-1 ?
This gains the Euro symbol, but obviously loses the sign (and a few
other less useful symbols)

Characters (in the upper region) move around. That's a big gotcha.
No, they don't. ISO-8859-15 replaces a handful of characters in ISO-8859-1
by other characters (which are not present in ISO-8859-1). There's no moving
around.

ISO-8859-15 is simply pointless in www authoring, since any browser that
understands it can also handle UTF-8 (but not vice versa), and the few
characters that are different from ISO-8859-1 can easily be written as
entity or character references in HTML. Whenever you wonder whether you
should use ISO-8859-15, you should really ask yourself whether you should
use ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8.

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

Jan 27 '07 #6

P: n/a
On 26 Jan, 16:40, Martin Honnen <mahotr...@yahoo.dewrote:
The pound symbol "" is in both ISO-8859-1 and ISO-8859-15.
Thanks Martin - I'd just mis-read my listings.

I can't say "use UTF-8" instead because I'm already saying that. This
is just for the section of the notes applying to those customers
specifically insisting on ISO-8859-something instead of UTF-8 (don't
ask me why, they just do).

I have _no_ idea what to say to the one insisting on using CP-1256 on
Solaris....

Jan 29 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
I can't say "use UTF-8" instead because I'm already saying that. This
is just for the section of the notes applying to those customers
specifically insisting on ISO-8859-something instead of UTF-8 (don't
ask me why, they just do).
It's not quite clear what you are talking about:
Do you speak of the encoding (charset) of web pages (which is a
subject of this group)?
Or do you speak of the character set used on the computers of
your customers (which is not a subject of this group)?
I have _no_ idea what to say to the one insisting on using CP-1256 on
Solaris....
In Solaris 9, there are Arabic fonts in
/usr/openwin/lib/locale/ar/X11/fonts/TrueType/
Jan 29 '07 #8

P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
ISO-8859-15 is simply pointless in www authoring,
[...]
Whenever you wonder whether you should use
ISO-8859-15, you should really ask yourself whether you should use ISO-8859-1
or UTF-8.
.... or Windows-1252 (code*page 1252), which covers all characters of
ISO-8859-1 and -15 and which is supported by all (?) browsers.
Jan 29 '07 #9

P: n/a
On 29 Jan, 14:48, Andreas Prilop <AndreasPrilop2...@trashmail.net>
wrote:
Do you speak of the encoding (charset) of web pages (which is a
subject of this group)?
Or do you speak of the character set used on the computers of
your customers (which is not a subject of this group)?
Both. I build webapps, the local servers _are_ my customers'
computers and thus control the page encodings I must work with.

Jan 29 '07 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.