This UTF discussion has got silly. I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need a lot to be desired. Lets consider the coding comparisons. Chars in the range 128-159 are not defined in Latin-1 (issue 1) and are used differently by windows to Latin-1 (later issues) so should be avoided. Chars in the range 160-191 (which include the gillemot) are coming through fine if encoded by the sender as UTF8. Anything in the range 192-255 is encoded differently and thus should be avoided. Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that will work under UTF8 and Latin-1 and Windows are: Code Symbol Comment 160 Non-breaking space (map to normal whitespace) 161 � Could be used 162 � Could be used 163 � Could be used 164 � Could be used 165 � Could be used 166 � Could be used 167 � Could be used 168 � Could be used thouugh risks confusion with " 169 � Could be used 170 � Could be used (but I dislike it as it is alphabetic) 171 � May well be used 172 � "Not"? 173 � Nonbreaking "-" treat as the same 174 � Could be used 175 � May cause confusion with _ and - 176 � Could be used 177 � Introduces an interesting level of uncertainty? Useable 178 � To the power of 2 (squaring ? ) Otherwise best avoided 179 � Cubing? Otherwise best avoided 180 � Too confusing with ' and ` 181 � Could be used 182 � Could be used 183 � Dot Product? though likely to be confused with . 184 � treat as , 185 � To the power 1? Probably best avoided 186 � Could be used (but I dislike it as it is alphabetic) 187 � May well be used 188 � Could be used 189 � Could be used 190 � Could be used 191 � Could be used Richard -- Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.waveney.org Telecoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.WaveneyConsulting.com Web services [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wavwebs.com Independent Telecomms Specialist, ATM expert, Web Analyst & Services
