On Sat, January 5, 2008 4:04 pm, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 1:41 AM +0100 1/5/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:16:54 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0100 1/4/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:29:45 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 12:03 PM +0100 1/7/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
How does the following pages compare? The display
should be identical:
http://luden.se/test/t-1252.html
http://luden.se/test/t-utf8.html
Nisse:
No, there is quite a difference depending upon
At 1:19 PM +0100 1/9/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:29:45 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 12:03 PM +0100 1/7/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
How does the following pages compare? The display
should be identical:
http://luden.se/test/t-1252.html
http://luden.se/test/t-utf8.html
Nisse:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:30:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yes, I said that there is no windows-1252
setting for Safari. It does not offer that
named setting in it's list of text encodings
available. There is no 1252 mentioned either --
however, that does not mean that it's not there
under a
2008. 01. 7, hétfő keltezéssel 12.14-kor tedd ezt írta:
At 4:36 PM +0100 1/7/08, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2008. 01. 7, hétf‘ keltezéssel 10.29-kor tedd ezt írta:
however, on firefox with encoding auto-detection both page looks
correctly and the same.
greets
Zoltán Németh
Not that you are
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:28:55 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 11:04 PM +0100 1/5/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
The page encoding is determined by the HTTP
`Content-Type:´ header. Period. A meta element
may provide hints to a browser if the HTTP header
is missing (eg. when saving a page to disc). In the
At 12:03 PM +0100 1/7/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
How does the following pages compare? The display
should be identical:
http://luden.se/test/t-1252.html
http://luden.se/test/t-utf8.html
Nisse:
No, there is quite a difference depending upon
the text encoding used in my browser (Safari).
For
2008. 01. 7, hétfő keltezéssel 10.29-kor tedd ezt írta:
At 12:03 PM +0100 1/7/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
How does the following pages compare? The display
should be identical:
http://luden.se/test/t-1252.html
http://luden.se/test/t-utf8.html
Nisse:
No, there is quite a difference
All of these look the same for me in Opera under Linux. Character sets
are not a browser war issue, they're a character set/font issue. Just
because a character set supports a character, doesn't mean the character
font exists.
Cheers,
Rob.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 10:29 -0500, tedd wrote:
At
At 4:36 PM +0100 1/7/08, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2008. 01. 7, hétf keltezéssel 10.29-kor tedd ezt írta:
however, on firefox with encoding auto-detection both page looks
correctly and the same.
greets
Zoltán Németh
Not that you are claiming otherwise, but FF will
render the pages incorrectly if
At 10:41 AM -0500 1/7/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
Character setsare not a browser war issue,
they're a character set/font issue. Just
because a character set supports a character, doesn't mean the character
font exists.
Cheers,
Rob.
Rob:
What I meant by browser wars was that there is
a
At 11:04 PM +0100 1/5/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
The page encoding is determined by the HTTP
`Content-Type:´ header. Period. A meta element
may provide hints to a browser if the HTTP header
is missing (eg. when saving a page to disc). In the
presence of a `Content-Type:´ header, the meta
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 1:41 AM +0100 1/5/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:16:54 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0100 1/4/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd wrote:
Nisse:
Thanks again for your time and guidance.
On Jan 5, 2008 5:04 PM, Nisse Engström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
The page encoding is determined by the HTTP
`Content-Type:´ header. Period.
[snip=again]
Negative. If that were the case, what would be the sense in
providing browser encoding translation? Have you noticed, for
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 4:24 PM +0100 1/3/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:36:56 -0500, tedd wrote:
To find out, I did put the operation through FireFox and reversed the
POST/GET operations to get a look at the string -- it is:
At 10:33 AM +0100 1/4/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd wrote:
Nisse:
I thank you for your most enlightened and informative reply.
I cut/pasted your post into my list of things to remember.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:16:54 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0100 1/4/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd wrote:
Nisse:
I thank you for your most enlightened and informative reply.
I cut/pasted your post into my list of things to remember.
A few more random
At 1:41 AM +0100 1/5/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:16:54 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0100 1/4/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:39:36 -0500, tedd wrote:
Nisse:
Thanks again for your time and guidance.
As you said, it's my understanding that a web
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:36:56 -0500, tedd wrote:
To find out, I did put the operation through FireFox and reversed the
POST/GET operations to get a look at the string -- it is:
%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Z%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0 where Z is the value passed.
Now, C2 (HEX) is a linefeed (194 DEC)
At 4:24 PM +0100 1/3/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:36:56 -0500, tedd wrote:
To find out, I did put the operation through FireFox and reversed the
POST/GET operations to get a look at the string -- it is:
%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Z%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0 where Z is
On Thu, January 3, 2008 11:39 am, tedd wrote:
At 4:24 PM +0100 1/3/08, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:36:56 -0500, tedd wrote:
To find out, I did put the operation through FireFox and reversed
the
POST/GET operations to get a look at the string -- it is:
On Wed, January 2, 2008 6:36 pm, tedd wrote:
Now, why does a POST operation add in C2's? I'll leave that for
another post. :-)
I believe the POST operation adds nothing.
The BROWSER interprets your nbsp; as whatever it finds most
appropriate to slap into a button VALUE, given the charset and
At 3:35 PM -0600 1/3/08, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, January 2, 2008 6:36 pm, tedd wrote:
Now, why does a POST operation add in C2's? I'll leave that for
another post. :-)
I believe the POST operation adds nothing.
The BROWSER interprets your nbsp; as whatever it finds most
appropriate
At 3:33 PM -0600 1/3/08, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Thu, January 3, 2008 11:39 am, tedd wrote:
That's a valid point. Not only the encoding that's declared for the
page via it's html DOCTYPE, but also what encoding was used to
actually save that file on the server.
This entire encoding
At 6:42 PM -0500 1/2/08, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 6:32 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, it produces:
%C2%C2%C2%C2%C2A%C2%C2%C2
Thanks for trying :-)
Why is it that things work perfectly for me until you test them?
It's because I have a tester.
You see, it's easy
On Jan 2, 2008 7:36 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 6:42 PM -0500 1/2/08, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 6:32 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, it produces:
%C2%C2%C2%C2%C2A%C2%C2%C2
Thanks for trying :-)
Why is it that things work perfectly for me until
26 matches
Mail list logo