Crikey! A Verdana's got my baby!

[Karl Smith]

Anyone who has read c.i.w.a.* for more than a few weeks knows that one
of the pet hates of the CIWAHians is Verdana (it's a typeface, BTW).
Future archeologists stumbling across these messages out of context
could be forgiven for thinking "Verdana" must be some kind of
dangerous animal. We must get rid of it, before it gets us!

Oddly, they can never seem to articulate *why* they dislike Verdana,
other than some vague assertion that it looks different. Surely that's
the point. What would be the purpose of all these font files that
infest my computer if all the typefaces looked the same? I can't
understand the apparent level of fear and loathing, just because
something looks a bit different. "A fair go for Verdana," that's all
I'm saying.

If you really find Verdana that distracting, all you need do is remove
the font from your *personal computer* - a simple, painless operation
that will take only a few seconds. Repeatedly asserting to other
people that they should not use something just because the cult
members have chosen to dislike it makes no sense whatsoever.

Is there anyone out there who has actually removed Verdana from their
computer? Perhaps they could explain what the often alluded to, but
rarely explained, "problem" really is?

--
Karl Smith.

[kchayka]

Karl Smith wrote:

only an illiterate sees
that character on their screen and does not think, "There is an
error."

I really don't see what the big deal is. Maybe my many years as an
application programmer made me oblivious to it, but seems to me y'all
are overreacting a tad.

What I find much more annoying than seeing a tick mark in place of a
(curly) apostrophe is a prime or double prime character in place of
quotes, something fairly common on Macs. Besides being ugly it is
obviously wrong, especially reverse prime on the LHS. This is a far, far
worse offense, IMO.

BTW, what does this have to do with stylesheets?

--
Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Stan Brown]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Sorry, but the English language has orthography rules, too, and they
have always used asymmetric quotation marks;

Citation, please?

For what?

For the quoted statement, of course. Sheesh!

"Any English grammar" won't cut it:

It will if you just open a grammar and look at it. It surely contains
rules for presenting quotations.

As I posted _before_ the article you responded to, I have opened
_all_three_ that I own, and _not_one_ of them has a word to say
about the shape of a quotation mark or apostrophe.

Usually you're a fount of good information, but for some reason here
you;'re just making wild statements, outside your area of expertise,
and refusing either to back them up or to explain what you really
mean.

I give up.

--
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/

[Stan Brown]

"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There's one way to draw an apostrophe, anything else is just a mark on the
page. If anything is going to draw a stylised weird version of an
apostrophe, that ought to be the exception, rather than the norm.

Saying there's only one way to draw an apostrophe is like saying
there's only one way to draw a lower-case a.

--
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/

[Ulujain]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Ulujain <pe***@REMOVEulujain.org> wrote:

Jukka, the British English way to enclose quotes, i.e spoken dialogue
in books, is a single '

I know that British English usually uses single quotation marks (and
double quotation marks for inner quotations), but I also know that it
uses asymmetric (i.e., left and right different) single quotation marks.
The difference in using single and double marks is irrelevant here.

You mentioned orthographic; so it's hardly irrelevant. By using the word
orthographic, you're suggesting that the English language is written
consistently. The fact that two different English speaking cultures use
different quotes proves that the science of English orthography is a
sorry one.

The American way is using ".

No, the American way uses asymmetric double quotation marks.

Not consistently. In newer works of fiction, yes, but most books I have
use ".

I've seen very few books enclose quotes in “ and ”

Really? Wait a minute... I check
- The SGML Handbook (which naturally uses Ascii quotation marks in SGML
samples but asymmetric quotation marks in prose)
- Programming Perl (again, Ascii quotes for code samples, but...
- The World' Writing Systems
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- The Extended Phenotype
- The Dark Light Years
and I think I'll stop now - they all use asymmetric quotation marks
(though in one case, I had to look at them twice, since the glyphs were
somewhat strange).

Quoting 6 books out of several million doesn't win you an argument. If
you like, I can give you many more examples that do use ".

--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/

[Stan Brown]

"Karl Smith" <go************@kjsmith.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

It is impossible for anything to be simultaneously in the categories
"abomination" and "perfect".

Well, posting from a false address that looks like a valid address
might qualify as "a perfect abomination".

--
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/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

As I posted _before_ the article you responded to, I have opened
_all_three_ that I own, and _not_one_ of them has a word to say
about the shape of a quotation mark or apostrophe.

Do the say some words about the shape of the comma? No, I don't think so.
Yet, it would be incorrect to use a vertical bar both as a comma and as a
full stop.

They define the shape of quotation marks by showing them. It is up to the
reader to understand the essentials, but in this case, it is dead simple
to understand that no single character can work _both_ as an opening
quote _and_ as a closing quote, since they are _different characters_.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ulujain]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

They define the shape of quotation marks by showing them. It is up to the
reader to understand the essentials, but in this case, it is dead simple
to understand that no single character can work _both_ as an opening
quote _and_ as a closing quote, since they are _different characters_.

Trouble is, it does work. It may not be "proper" according to a few, but
it does work and the average reader (of which it's of most importance
to) is not going to care. Most people who can read English would understand:

"Hello, my name is Bob." as a quoted piece of dialogue representative of
speech.
--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/

[Neal]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:37:21 -0400, Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There's one way to draw an apostrophe, anything else is just a mark on
the
page. If anything is going to draw a stylised weird version of an
apostrophe, that ought to be the exception, rather than the norm.

Saying there's only one way to draw an apostrophe is like saying
there's only one way to draw a lower-case a.

Or a g.

Just because a book on language uses particular type does not make that
type universally correct.

[kchayka]

Ulujain wrote:

It may not be "proper" according to a few, but
it does work and the average reader (of which it's of most importance
to) is not going to care.

I think that's the important point - most readers aren't going to care
one whit what shape the apostrophe is.

Me thinks it's long past time to kill this thread. Bye

--
Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

I think that's the important point - most readers aren't going to care
one whit what shape the apostrophe is.
Actually, most people react to such things, though mostly unconsciously.
The same applies to most matters of visual presentation in the broad
sense (covering orthography, which is actually a content matter).
Me thinks it's long past time to kill this thread.

Is posting articles your way to kill a thread?

The whole thread was more or less a joke from the beginning. Enjoy it or
ignore it.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Lauri Raittila]

In article jake wrote:

In message <40**********************@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl >, Els
<el*********@tiscali.nl> writes

jake wrote:

In message <40**********************@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl >, Els
<el*********@tiscali.nl> writes
[snip]

I think the example at
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/verdana.htm is showing the
'problem' really well.

Personally, I can easily read all of those fonts at 80%. On a 19"
1280x1024 screen. If I set my screen to 1600x1200 things are
different already.
Or if you set font in your browser to have size, that is good for you to
read, but big enaugh to waste screen space.
But not everybody has good eyesight.

And what Ivo said :-)
And on my 17" 1024x768 I don't see a problem reading Verdana,
Tahoma, or Trebuchet down to 85% (with my glasses on) without getting
eye-strain.
But what if you wouldn't have those fonts? I wonder how many people don't have one of those fonts installed? I'd be
surprised if it's less than 90% (the number of IE users).
Other problem group is people that do use Verdana as their default font
on browser. They set it nicely sized, then you 85% it, and it is too
small.
How's Arial on your screen at 85%?

Smaller then I'd like it, but still readable. In reality, if the font
was too small for comfort I'd simply increase the text size (in
Explorer).

In IE, it is easier to leave site than change fon size.
If the font had been set to a fixed size, I'd just look at it
in Opera (it's set for a minimum text size).
This is good argument. How many people would you think will do that? Do
you actually do that often?
Arial's not a good choice for small text, anyway -- too narrow for my
liking.
Notice that usually Times New Roman is the default font. That is even
worse than Arial.
Verdana, Tahoma, Trebuchet and Georgia were designed specifically for
legibility on a screen.

So, if you've suggested Verdana as first choice for the font to be used
to view your page, followed by Tahoma, and then Trebuchet I would think
that at least 9 out of 10 viewers will be happy.

10% can be millions. Losing 10% of sales is losing more than 10% on
profit. You wouldn't tolerate that your server would be down 2.4 hours a
day, would you? Why do you tolerate 10% not able to read your page for
other reasons?
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Daniel R. Tobias]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:<Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31 >...

You can decide to use “ and ” and other references, or the
characters themselves in a suitable encoding, in HTML. Or you can decide
that the Web is not yet mature enough for them and stick to surrogates
that are known to be orthographically and typographically wrong, yet
widely understood, namely " and '. But messing around with <q> markup and
the 'quotes' property is pointless, and so are attempts to justify the
use of " and ' by claiming them to be correct.

Or, unfortunately, you can do what many Web dee-zine-ers do, and let
your authoring tools extrude nonstandard characters that, on some
platforms, give the appearance of giving you proper typographic
quotes, when in terms of proper character standards they're actually
undefined, invalid, or control characters. This sort of idiocy has
given me a distaste for "curly quotes", as typographically correct as
they may be.

--
Dan

[Shawn K. Quinn]

jake wrote:

In message <3d************************@posting.google.com>, Karl Smith
<go************@kjsmith.com> writes

Anyone who has read c.i.w.a.* for more than a few weeks knows that one
of the pet hates of the CIWAHians is Verdana (it's a typeface, BTW). [...]If you really find Verdana that distracting, all you need do is remove
the font from your *personal computer* - a simple, painless operation
that will take only a few seconds. Repeatedly asserting to other
people that they should not use something just because the cult
members have chosen to dislike it makes no sense whatsoever.
In some browsing situations (corporate computer or public library) this
isn't an option.
Is there anyone out there who has actually removed Verdana from their
computer? Perhaps they could explain what the often alluded to, but
rarely explained, "problem" really is?
I**actually*like*Verdana*--*yes,*honest.

I personally don't care for it. I much prefer either the Bitstream Vera
fonts, Apple Garamond, or Gentium.
The problem seems to stem from designers who like the appearance of
Verdana, but don't like its size. So, they set their stylesheets to show
it at less than 100%.

If the viewer doesn't have Verdana installed, then they're going to see
the 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice, or their default -- but at less than 100%.

Personally, I don't have a problem with most defaults down to 85%, but
other people do.

I do. I have my default font size set where it is for a reason. If the
"designer" wants a smaller font size as a default, he/she can set it *in*
*his/her* *browser*, not in the author stylesheet.

This is why I have to set my minimum font size so damn high. If I didn't,
I'd get unreadable text on every other site. Well, actually, I still get
unreadable text when some idiot decides to set, for example, 'font-size:
8px; line-height: 9px;' and my default size is somewhere around 12px. What
are these people smoking when they make these stylesheets?!

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Karl Smith]

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

This is why I have to set my minimum font size so damn high. If I didn't,
I'd get unreadable text on every other site. Well, actually, I still get
unreadable text when some idiot decides to set, for example, 'font-size:
8px; line-height: 9px;' and my default size is somewhere around 12px. What
are these people smoking when they make these stylesheets?!

Thanks. I've occasionally wondered whether I was the only person in
the world to realize that the minimum font size function has a problem
if the line height isn't corrected too.

The other problem is with the two legitimate uses for small text,
namely superscripts and subscripts: the minimum font size needs to
deal with these a little more intelligently than it does now.

--
Karl Smith.

[Karl Smith]

Stan Brown wrote:

Karl Smith wrote:

Oddly, they can never seem to articulate *why* they dislike Verdana,
What, "the x-height is much greater than on other fonts" too
complicated for you?

What, "If all fonts looked the same, there wouldn't be any point
having them," too complicated for you?

As for the truth of your assertion, "the x-height is much greater than
on other fonts": that is simply *not* true. The x-height of Verdana is
exactly the same as the x-height of Tahoma, which is often recommended
as the appropriate choice to replace Verdana. Spot the Verdana:

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css/x-height.html

You'll need to view the source, because you won't see any difference
in height, x- or otherwise.

You posted on April 1, so perhaps what looks like ignorance or
mendacity is just some sort of "April Fool".

Mendacity? A tendency to be untruthful? When you argue with a fool
remember that he might be doing the same.

--
"See, you're just making shit up. It doesn't work that way."
- Neal in c.i.w.a.stylesheets, April 1st 2004.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2004, Karl Smith wrote:

Thanks. I've occasionally wondered whether I was the only person in
the world to realize that the minimum font size function has a problem
if the line height isn't corrected too.

It's no news that there's a problem if the line height has been
specified in inappropriate units, indeed.

Since "minimum font size" is a browser function, presumably it's
really a browser implementer problem to deal with the consequences of
that. Or were you meaning for there to be a user stylesheet for
imposing the desired combination of min font size and line height?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2004, Karl Smith wrote:

Thanks. I've occasionally wondered whether I was the only person in
the world to realize that the minimum font size function has a problem
if the line height isn't corrected too.
It's no news that there's a problem if the line height has been
specified in inappropriate units, indeed.

Since "minimum font size" is a browser function, presumably it's
really a browser implementer problem to deal with the consequences of
that.

I would agree here. It's pretty obvious that setting font-size in absolute
units is a recipe for disaster, and it should be an obvious inference that
any correction to font-size needs to address the possibility of line-height
being too small as well.
Or were you meaning for there to be a user stylesheet for imposing the
desired combination of min font size and line height?

Minimum font-size is not currently implemented as a user stylesheet option,
but rather as a dialog box slider or input box. I would expect any minimum
line-height option to be implemented in the same way as a minimum.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Karl Smith]

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2004, Karl Smith wrote:

Thanks. I've occasionally wondered whether I was the only person in
the world to realize that the minimum font size function has a problem
if the line height isn't corrected too.

It's no news that there's a problem if the line height has been
specified in inappropriate units, indeed.

Since "minimum font size" is a browser function, presumably it's
really a browser implementer problem to deal with the consequences of
that.

I would agree here. It's pretty obvious that setting font-size in absolute
units is a recipe for disaster, and it should be an obvious inference that
any correction to font-size needs to address the possibility of line-height
being too small as well.

It's obvious in retrospect ;-). I think the problem is that CSS allows
too much choice of units. You can specify the actual value the browser
will use to calculate line-height as a real number, so I see no use
for the other options. They only exist for consistency with the
font-size property - not a good enough reason IMO.

Or were you meaning for there to be a user stylesheet for imposing the
desired combination of min font size and line height?

Minimum font-size is not currently implemented as a user stylesheet option,
but rather as a dialog box slider or input box. I would expect any minimum
line-height option to be implemented in the same way as a minimum.

A minimum line-height user option is a non-starter, because you (as
browser vendor) would have to educate users what line-height meant.
Too few users know the minimum font size option is there - avoid
complicating it.

--
Karl Smith.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Karl Smith wrote:

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Or were you meaning for there to be a user stylesheet for imposing the
desired combination of min font size and line height?

Minimum font-size is not currently implemented as a user stylesheet option,
but rather as a dialog box slider or input box. I would expect any minimum
line-height option to be implemented in the same way as a minimum.

A minimum line-height user option is a non-starter, because you (as
browser vendor) would have to educate users what line-height meant.
Too few users know the minimum font size option is there - avoid
complicating it.

I can see your point - but (speaking as a general principle) there
might be an argument for specialist-written remedial user stylesheets,
which a user with particular special needs can choose, install and
enable without understanding the fine-detail of the CSS which it
contains.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Karl Smith wrote:

"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Or were you meaning for there to be a user stylesheet for imposing the
desired combination of min font size and line height?

Minimum font-size is not currently implemented as a user stylesheet option,
but rather as a dialog box slider or input box. I would expect any minimum
line-height option to be implemented in the same way as a minimum.

A minimum line-height user option is a non-starter, because you (as
browser vendor) would have to educate users what line-height meant.
Too few users know the minimum font size option is there - avoid
complicating it.

I can see your point - but (speaking as a general principle) there
might be an argument for specialist-written remedial user stylesheets,
which a user with particular special needs can choose, install and
enable without understanding the fine-detail of the CSS which it
contains.

[Christoph Paeper]

*Daniel R. Tobias* <da*@tobias.name>:

Or, unfortunately, you can do what many Web dee-zine-ers do, and let
your authoring tools extrude nonstandard characters that, on some
platforms, give the appearance of giving you proper typographic
quotes, when in terms of proper character standards they're actually
undefined, invalid, or control characters.
I guess you are mocking about Windows-1252 and its siblings. It is true they
are similar to, but not compatible with ISO/IEC 8859. Nevertheless they are
(now) proper IANA registered character encoding standards, although not
developped by some public s13n entity, but a certain company. The problem is
"just" with labeling resources which are really cp1252 as latin-1 (or not at
all). This affects CSS files as well. ;)

OTOH text consoles have a misleading tradition of using fonts where the
surrogate character ' looks like a high-9 and the accent character ` like a
high-6 quotation mark.
This sort of idiocy has given me a distaste for "curly quotes",
as typographically correct as they may be.

I like » and « better, especially in small font sizes. They are not correct
in common English typography, though. (Of course English is merely
standardized at all.) Now let's get on with dashes, hyphens and other
horizontal bars... (U+2026)

As Verdana got this thread started, another rant: like some other MS fonts
Verdana has some of the curly quotes flipped, which is not noticeable or
ugly with English usage, but in many other languages.

--
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him." -- C.G. Jung

[Christoph Paeper]

*Daniel R. Tobias* <da*@tobias.name>:

Or, unfortunately, you can do what many Web dee-zine-ers do, and let
your authoring tools extrude nonstandard characters that, on some
platforms, give the appearance of giving you proper typographic
quotes, when in terms of proper character standards they're actually
undefined, invalid, or control characters.
I guess you are mocking about Windows-1252 and its siblings. It is true they
are similar to, but not compatible with ISO/IEC 8859. Nevertheless they are
(now) proper IANA registered character encoding standards, although not
developped by some public s13n entity, but a certain company. The problem is
"just" with labeling resources which are really cp1252 as latin-1 (or not at
all). This affects CSS files as well. ;)

OTOH text consoles have a misleading tradition of using fonts where the
surrogate character ' looks like a high-9 and the accent character ` like a
high-6 quotation mark.
This sort of idiocy has given me a distaste for "curly quotes",
as typographically correct as they may be.

I like » and « better, especially in small font sizes. They are not correct
in common English typography, though. (Of course English is merely
standardized at all.) Now let's get on with dashes, hyphens and other
horizontal bars... (U+2026)

As Verdana got this thread started, another rant: like some other MS fonts
Verdana has some of the curly quotes flipped, which is not noticeable or
ugly with English usage, but in many other languages.

--
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him." -- C.G. Jung

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Christoph Paeper wrote:

*Daniel R. Tobias* <da*@tobias.name>:

Or, unfortunately, you can do what many Web dee-zine-ers do, and let
your authoring tools extrude nonstandard characters that, on some
platforms, give the appearance of giving you proper typographic
quotes, when in terms of proper character standards they're actually
undefined, invalid, or control characters.
I guess you are mocking about Windows-1252 and its siblings.

That isn't how I read it. Most of the misbegotten HTML-extruding
tools that I have met are making no attempt to extrude the actual
8-bit characters 151 etc. in a document "properly"[1] advertised as
windows-1252, but are emitting &#number; references in the range
128-159 inclusive, and that's the chief gripe, since these references,
although technically "valid" in SGML, have no official meaning i.e
their syntax is OK but semantically they are officially meaningless.

Anyway, in XML/XHTML they are invalid.
Nevertheless they are (now) proper IANA registered character
encoding standards, although not developped by some public s13n
entity, but a certain company. The problem is "just" with labeling
resources which are really cp1252 as latin-1 (or not at all).

Yes, although the registered MIME charset value is not "cp1252",
it's "Windows-1252".
[1] "properly" in the sense of being IANA-registered, albeit
proprietary; although there have been arguments in favour of using
this proprietary encoding (back when platforms were typically limited
to an 8-bit character model), that argument no longer seems to hold
much water (unless you're stuck with WebTV or something...).

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Christoph Paeper wrote:

*Daniel R. Tobias* <da*@tobias.name>:

Or, unfortunately, you can do what many Web dee-zine-ers do, and let
your authoring tools extrude nonstandard characters that, on some
platforms, give the appearance of giving you proper typographic
quotes, when in terms of proper character standards they're actually
undefined, invalid, or control characters.
I guess you are mocking about Windows-1252 and its siblings.

That isn't how I read it. Most of the misbegotten HTML-extruding
tools that I have met are making no attempt to extrude the actual
8-bit characters 151 etc. in a document "properly"[1] advertised as
windows-1252, but are emitting &#number; references in the range
128-159 inclusive, and that's the chief gripe, since these references,
although technically "valid" in SGML, have no official meaning i.e
their syntax is OK but semantically they are officially meaningless.

Anyway, in XML/XHTML they are invalid.
Nevertheless they are (now) proper IANA registered character
encoding standards, although not developped by some public s13n
entity, but a certain company. The problem is "just" with labeling
resources which are really cp1252 as latin-1 (or not at all).

Yes, although the registered MIME charset value is not "cp1252",
it's "Windows-1252".
[1] "properly" in the sense of being IANA-registered, albeit
proprietary; although there have been arguments in favour of using
this proprietary encoding (back when platforms were typically limited
to an 8-bit character model), that argument no longer seems to hold
much water (unless you're stuck with WebTV or something...).

[Christoph Paeper]

*Alan J. Flavell* <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>:

Yes, although the registered MIME charset value is not "cp1252",
it's "Windows-1252".

Oh, I thought "cp1252" was a registered alias, but according to
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets> it is indeed not. If I
weren't reading up my Easter Usenet backlog, I would have checked
that---honestly.

--
"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong." H. L. Mencken

[Christoph Paeper]

*Alan J. Flavell* <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>:

Yes, although the registered MIME charset value is not "cp1252",
it's "Windows-1252".

Oh, I thought "cp1252" was a registered alias, but according to
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets> it is indeed not. If I
weren't reading up my Easter Usenet backlog, I would have checked
that---honestly.

--
"For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong." H. L. Mencken