In message <mailman.4670.1262720820.14599.rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com>, rootsweb-help-request@rootsweb.com writes iso-8859 is a subset of UTF8 - so with UTF8 your pages will work just as well PLUS you can write stuff in Chinese if you care to. For a fuller explanation see: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html (which relates to unix systems, but the fundamentals are true for any computer system) Why limit yourself by using an old standard - go for UTF8! >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:24:40 -0500 >From: Pat Geary <pat@family-genealogy-online.com> >Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] utf-8 >To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >Message-ID: <201001051751.o05HpN41006392@mail.rootsweb.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >At 11:59 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote: >>I too use utf-8 based on reading that it was an >>international standard. Does anyone else have >>observations on its use? > > >It's the default used with Expression web but I usually change it to > ><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> > >http://www.htmlbasictutor.ca/character-encoding.htm > >pat > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:54:12 -0500 >From: Robert Sullivan <robert.g.sullivan@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] utf-8 >To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >Message-ID: > <32c265401001051054redcd328m36682cd61c6bc960@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> > >> I too use utf-8 based on reading that it was an >> international standard. ?Does anyone else have >> observations on its use? >> George > >That's why I did it also. I was doing a complete renovation of my >site and wanted to get it right. There's nothing wrong with >iso-8859-1, but if you're taking the long view you might as well use >utf-8. > >-- >Bob Sullivan >Schenectady Digital History Archive ><http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/> >Schenectady County (NY) Public Library > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:08:16 -0600 >From: "Jim Rickenbacker\(3\)" <j3mr2@borisbrooks.com> >Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] utf-8 >To: <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> >Message-ID: <B8889A57F82E49819DA779291394776D@delta> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > >utf-8 is a variable length character set, i.e. some special characters take >more than one byte. If you are doing database driven web pages this can >cause string processing problems for languages like PHP and Perl. UTF-8 >shouldn't be a problem for static web pages but for now I'm sticking with >iso-8859-1 until utf-8 gains maturity and more universal support. > >For much the same maturity reason, I'm avoiding XHTML 1.0. HTML 4.01 strict >works well, displays equivalently in IE and Firefox and should convert to >XHTML 2+ fairly easily. > >Jim Rickenbacker > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "George Waller" <George@waller.org> >To: <rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:59 AM >Subject: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] utf-8 > > >>I too use utf-8 based on reading that it was an >> international standard. Does anyone else have >> observations on its use? >> George >> >> On 4 Jan 2010 at 23:24, Tina Clarke wrote: >> >>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:34:01 -0500 >From: Robert Sullivan <robert.g.sullivan@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [ROOTSWEB-HELP] utf-8 >To: rootsweb-help@rootsweb.com >Message-ID: > <32c265401001051134j6ab9189ge93a665cede9935c@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> For much the same maturity reason, I'm avoiding XHTML 1.0. HTML 4.01 strict >> works well, displays equivalently in IE and Firefox and should convert to >> XHTML 2+ fairly easily. > >Or to put it another way, if you are validating your pages to a strict >doctype, whether it's HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 is a matter of taste. >Either one will help you a lot in future conversions. > >Validating to HTML 4.01 / XHTML 1.0 Transitional is better than no >validation, but it still passes a lot of crud which is better off >removed or updated. > -- John Gibson Chalmers - john@dgnscrn.demon.co.uk Homepages ... http://www.dgnscrn.demon.co.uk/ and ... http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~chalmers/