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 ?.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
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
