Re: cvs: phpdoc / Makefile.in

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > > I think that This isn't related to hebrew. Browsers don't follow "the > > standard" for any charset if I am not wrong. Meaning, if the page i am > > currently viewing has the windows-1255 charset set, and I'll click on a > > link to google, and google would have the "standard" meta tag, the browser > > will stay on windows-1255, simply because <DEFANGED_meta charset="X"> is > > the format > > that browsers follow. (I don't know why. Perhaps it was introduced in IE > > and everyone used it, so that's why they follow it? Much like <marquee> > > which is not in the standard). > > > > Anyways, "my" way works fine in Mozilla *and* IE. All the other ways does > > not... Standard or not-standard, if a tag is being ignored by 99% of the > > browsers, I don't see a use to put it... waste of space/traffic... > > As discussed with Friedhelm, there were no test files on his server to > have a meta http-equiv with iso-8859-8-i charset specified. This would > work with Mozilla and Konqueror. Does anybody tested it with IE? I have > no IE, I have linux ;) > > Goba > OK, I am officially confused. I have just tested the following: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-8-i" /> In this URL: http://shimi.staff.fresh.co.il/chat/ I have changed the encoding in Mozilla (Firebird) and in IE to Turkish. Then I browsed to this page. Encoding changed automatically to iso-8859-8-i. I saw Hebrew right. Perhaps the problem with windows-1255 on the content-type equivalents is that... windows-1255 is not actually the standard ? I don't care :) Is it possible to use the line I mentioned above? I have understood it is valid HTML... -- Best regards, Shimi ---- "Outlook is a massive flaming horrid blatant security violation, which also happens to be a mail reader." "Sure UNIX is user friendly; it's just picky about who its friends are."