Holger Metzger wrote: > UTF-8 might be the easiest choice, but many mail/newsreaders out > there might have compatibility problems with it.
I also added "some" comments/suggestions to the bug at: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109342 If UTF-8 supports the special characters of most countries and if UTF-8 has been designated by the powers that be to become the desired standard, then we should support this forward looking approach. I suggest to bring up a window when there are special characters that asks/informs (incl. "[ ]ask next time") to use UTF-8. The only two reasons against this that were presented were: 1. Some mail readers don't handle UTF-8. Why not? Is it difficult to implement? If not, then tough sh**t. The programmers should update their software pronto or loose those clients who want to send/read special characters. 2. Some people don't have a choice to upgrade their software? Huh! Who? Employees of companies with paranoid & deaf IT personnel (they exist)? Then the employees need to tell the IT what they need. The IT is there to serve the needs of the employees, not the other way around. I don't think this will be a problem if the solution (an UTF-8 capable mail proggy) is sufficiently publicised. BTW. How badly mangled would the text be if it is sent UTF-8 and received by a iso-8859-1 only reader? If the answer is "not much", then let's move *forward*. PS. Netscape can always bring out NC4.79 with UTF-8 support ;) -- Regards, Peter Lairo
