On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:30:58PM +0200, Egmont Koblinger wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:07:55PM +0600, Christopher Fynn wrote: > > Hi, > > > IMO these days all browsers should come with their default encoding set > > to UTF-8 > > What do you mean by a browser's default encoding? Is it the encoding to be > assumed for pages lacking charset specification? In this case iso-8859-1 is > a much better choise -- there are far more pages out there in the wild > encoded in latin1 that lack charset info than utf8 pages that lack this > info. (Maybe an utf8 auto-detection would be nice, though.) So my argument > for iso-8859-1 is not theoretical but practical.
Chris's argument (also mine) is practical too: It intentionally breaks pages which are missing an explicit character set specification, so that people making this broken stuff will have to fix it or deal with lost visitors/lost sales/etc. :) Rich -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
