UTF-8 vs ISO-8859-1

[Neal]

Been trying to research this, but not getting any solid answers.
So I ask the opinions of the esteemed panel.

Assuming one is authoring a page in English for a primarily US
audience, what are the benefits and drawbacks of using UTF-8,
ISO-8859-1, or other systems? What is recommended?

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

Been trying to research this, but not getting any solid answers.

Assuming one is authoring a page in English for a primarily US
audience, what are the benefits and drawbacks of using UTF-8,
ISO-8859-1, or other systems? What is recommended?

There are numerous threads on this in the Google archives. You might
want to start there.

http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=u...authoring.html

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

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Neal:

Assuming one is authoring a page in English for a primarily US
audience, what are the benefits and drawbacks of using UTF-8,
ISO-8859-1, or other systems? What is recommended?

Both should work very well these days, but ISO-8859-1 has slightly
better support in older user agents.

If you want to include some characters outside of the reportoire of
ISO-8859-1, it's adviseable to use UTF-8, since Netscape 4 has problems
displaying many such characters if you declare ISO-8859-1. (Encoding
them as numerical character references or as character entities will not
help Netscape 4.) But if you stay strictly within the character
repertoire of ISO-8859-1, then that encoding is the safer choice.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

[Stan Brown]

It seems "Neal" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html in
article <3f**********************@news.rcn.com>:

Been trying to research this, but not getting any solid answers.
So I ask the opinions of the esteemed panel.

Assuming one is authoring a page in English for a primarily US
audience, what are the benefits and drawbacks of using UTF-8,
ISO-8859-1, or other systems? What is recommended?

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html

--
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/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Neal wrote:

Assuming one is authoring a page in English for a primarily US
audience,
one of the US's experts (drat, I can no longer find the quote, so I'll
avoid naming him) did, not so long back, express the opinion that
us-ascii was quite enough for US usage - anything more was for those
fancy foreigners (or words to that effect). OK, so that was in an
email context...
what are the benefits and drawbacks of using UTF-8,
ISO-8859-1, or other systems? What is recommended?

My checklist has been fairly intensively discussed and reviewed:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...checklist.html

If you've no specific reason and understanding for why you'd want
to be doing otherwise, I recommend scenario 6:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...cklist.html#s6