Re: First stupid post of the year. [SOLVED]

At 10:41 AM -0500 1/7/08, Robert Cummings wrote:

Character setsare not a browser war issue, they're a character set/font issue. Just because a character set supports a character, doesn't mean the character font exists. Cheers, Rob.

Rob: What I meant by "browser wars" was that there is a different between how browsers render different text encodings -- this is a fact -- there is a difference. For example, the "Extended" ASCII codes (never approved by ASCII) shows many characters differently depending on browser encoding. Apple even has it's own logo appearing for DEC 240 (F0 HEX) for it's encoding. I can provide even more examples of differences if necessary, but one should be enough. Additionally, browsers absolutely render urls differently depending on encoding. Just look at the IDNS encoding PUNYCODE for that -- here's proof: http://xn--19g.com In Safari (both Mac and Windows) the url will be shown as ˆ.com (square root dot dom) whereas in IE (all versions) it will be show in PUNYCODE, namely xn--19g.com Note -- both OS's clearly have the square root symbol in their font set. So this is NOT an issue of IF the character exist within the font (charset) because the character IS present. I know the reasons behind their decisions to do what they did, but the fact remains there is a difference, as I said. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com