If you see "<html lang=ja>" then the page should use the font specified by the Japanese setting by default. [..] "Encoding" is fairly irrelevent to this, afaik <http://ken2403king.kir.jp/form.htm>
ThatÂs a funny one, indeed. When I opened it in Mozilla it was displayed as åæååååäåæååå.For a moment I thought it was Chinese (which I do not know) but it is gibberish. Mozilla thought it was Chinese Simplified GB 18030. The source says <html LANG="ja">. It is Japanese with shift-jis encoding, in reality it says ãåãåããããçãèã. (IsnÂt Unicode fun, allowing to put both variants in a mail message, just by copying from the Mozilla screen like this..)
So, isnÂt the LANG attribute *more* irrelevant, because it did not help Mozilla (1.5a) to display the text correctly? A META tag attribute "charset=shift-jis" added to (a copy of) the page did. DoesnÂt that mean that "encoding" is more relevant than "language"?
Regards, Jan
Interesting, I dont know how that link got in my mail, perhaps an accidental paste.
Looking closer it seems to be a very bad example of html, and its not even in unicode.
(the title tag is unclosed, it seems to be some kind of generated output)
Anyway, the page did load fine for me in mozilla, I dont know why it didnt work for you.
The lang attribute, when used judiciously does work.
a better example: http://home.earthlink.net/~srintuar26/data/lang-tags.html
This page is in both Japanese and Chinese, and no single font (that i have) should be able to render
it correctly, so its an example of when to use language tags, and that they have naught to do
with encoding. (an opentype font might be able to) I'm sure somewhere there is a better/
more thorough example page of this nature...
-- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
