Re: [tlug] japanese encoding question

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:24, Rudolf Ammann wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 17:23, Brett Robson wrote:
> >That's hilarious. I appreciate your good intentions but I can't even get
> >then to use   there is no chance they will do use the other ones.

You shouldn't need to put in the character entities, if you have an
editor that supports xml it should do it for you.

> Unicode has the obvious advantage that it removes the need for those 
> pesky HTML entities. Its drawback is that older browsers, Netscape 4.x 
> comes to mind, probably won't be very happy with it, but then these 
> browsers have a market share that may be negligible by now.

If you are concerned about Netscape 4.x browsers, it is trivial
converting xhtml to html but extremely difficult to do the reverse.

> While private projects such as weblogs can afford to be ahead of the 
> curve and use a charset that isn't universally supported yet, I'd like 
> to hear a technologically educated opinion on how viable UTF-8 is for 
> business sites.

If you look at the number of businesses that implement web pages that
require Internet Explorer to function, browser compatibility is
considered a non-issue.  If you want to get a better idea about utf-8
compatibility.  Look up this thread.

[tlug] Big5 Vs. Unicode Vs. Netscape 4.x Vs. deadline

Edward Middleton