On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:28 -0400, Bob McConnell wrote: > From: tedd > > > The Unicode database uses the same lower > > character values (i.e., "code points") as does > > ASCII, namely 0-127, and thus UFT-8 (8-bit > > variable width encoding) is really a super-set > > which includes the sub-set of ASCII. > > > > The "Wingdings" font that Ash refers to is the > > really the "Dingbat" char set in Unicode, as > > shown here: > > > > The use of UFT-8 encoding in everything (web and > > php) should present much less problems globally > > than it is trying to fight it. > > Thanks tedd, > > The real question is whether unicode is even relevant now that the UTF > series is available. I see no reason to have to deal with two competing > "specifications", when one of them is more than adequate for the job and > the other is not even finished yet. That's like the old days when a few > users demanded we support both ASCII and EBCDIC. That didn't get very > far either. > > Bob McConnell > Bob, UTF is unicode (Unicode Transformation Format) Interesting enough to note, and not sure if Tedd knows this or not (he probably does!) but Chrome has a nice feature for those punycode URLs; it suggests the actual real URL instead once you type the domain in. Not sure about Safari right now, couldn't be bothered to fire up a VM just to check. I would assume Firefox handles these URLs well enough too. Tedd, does that URL actually go anywhere, as I got nothing when I tried visiting it, both the actual URL and the punycode version. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
