Philippe Verdy wrote:
> May be you've forgotten FrontPage, a product acquired by Microsoft and
> then developped by Microsoft and widely promoted as part of Office,
> that insisted in declaring webpages as "ISO 8859-1" even if they
> contained characters that are only in "windows-1252". Even if w
(2012/11/22 1:58), Shawn Steele wrote:
> We aren’t going change names (since that’ll break
> anyone already using them), we probably won’t recognize new names (since
> anyone trying to use a new name wouldn’t work on millions of existing
> computers, so no one would add it).
Hey, why Microsoft chan
May be you've forgotten FrontPage, a product acquired by Microsoft and then
developped by Microsoft and widely promoted as part of Office, that
insisted in declaring webpages as "ISO 8859-1" even if they contained
characters that are only in "windows-1252". Even if we edited the page
externally to
"Peter Krefting" wrote:
>> Somewhat off-topic, I find it amusing that tolerance of "poorly
>> encoded" input is considered justification for changing the
>> underlying standards, when Internet Explorer has been flamed for
>> years and years for tolerating bad input.
>
> It's called adapting to re
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> But may be we could ask to Microsoft to map officially C1 controls on
> the remaining holes of windows-1252, to help improve the
> interoperability in HTML5 with a predictable and stable behavior
> across HTML5 applications. In that case the W3C needs not doing
> anything
Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/1137/
>
> Finally, an xkcd for Unicoders. :-)
The current thread about ISO 8859-1 and CP1252 calls to mind this one:
http://xkcd.com/927/
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
http://xkcd.com/1137/
Finally, an xkcd for Unicoders. :-)
Debbie
I’ll be more definitive than Murray ☺ Our legacy code pages aren’t going to
change. We won’t add more characters to 1252. We won’t add new code pages.
We aren’t going change names (since that’ll break anyone already using them),
we probably won’t recognize new names (since anyone trying to u
On 2012/11/21 16:23, Peter Krefting wrote:
Doug Ewell :
Somewhat off-topic, I find it amusing that tolerance of "poorly
encoded" input is considered justification for changing the underlying
standards,
The encoding work at W3C, at least as far as I see it, is not an attempt
to redefine e.g.
9 matches
Mail list logo