Re: Displaying 'umlaut' character
From: Peter J. Holzer <hjp-usenet2_at_hjp.at>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:22:41 +0200
Message-ID: <slrnia4jkq.noo.hjp-usenet2_at_hrunkner.hjp.at>
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html] On 2010-09-26 15:28, Frank van Bortel <fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 03:29 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>> On 2010-09-22 08:13, Frank van Bortel<fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote:
>>> Apart from what I replied earlier, the correct way to encode
>>> is of course "ö" (without the quotes...)
>>
>> That's not *the* correct way, just *a* correct way. Encoding it in the
>> charset indicated in the Content-Type header or a meta tag is equally
>> correct (and preferrable in most cicumstances, IMHO).
>
> would you please read the HTML definition?
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:22:41 +0200
Message-ID: <slrnia4jkq.noo.hjp-usenet2_at_hrunkner.hjp.at>
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html] On 2010-09-26 15:28, Frank van Bortel <fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 03:29 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>> On 2010-09-22 08:13, Frank van Bortel<fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote:
>>> Apart from what I replied earlier, the correct way to encode
>>> is of course "ö" (without the quotes...)
>>
>> That's not *the* correct way, just *a* correct way. Encoding it in the
>> charset indicated in the Content-Type header or a meta tag is equally
>> correct (and preferrable in most cicumstances, IMHO).
>
> would you please read the HTML definition?
I have. Various HTML definitions over the last 15 years, to be exact, and they all agree with me. I haven't yet read most of HTML5, but I don't expect it to depart from existing practice in this respect. Here is the relevant part of HTML4:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html
hp Received on Tue Sep 28 2010 - 15:22:41 CDT