> Is not it ironic that *after* Unicode finally became (almost) > supported, we started to put encoding-specific stuff in? Or is it > riding over unicode coinciding with Latin-1 over the first "page"? I think it is the latter. Unicode and ISO8879 seem to be identical for the first set of characters to 255. For example, according to the HTML 4 spec (sorry that's what I have on my desk) © is \xA9 in ISO8859 and 00A9 in unicode. They do seem to agree. -- Tim Jenness JCMT software engineer/Support scientist http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
- [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing HTML esc... Tim Jenness
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Ilya Zakharevich
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Tim Jenness
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Gurusamy Sarathy
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Russ Allbery
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Ilya Zakharevich
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Tim Jenness
- Re: [PATCH perl-5.5.670/lib/Pod/Text.pm] Add missing... Russ Allbery
