Jungshik,
> What makes me annoyed is that programs like Eudora lie about
> MIME charset (i.e. it declares it's sending out ISO 8859-1 while it
> actually sends out Windows-1252).
I have no problem sending it our with a " Windows-1252" character set. If
you convert to iso-8859-1 you lose characters that is just as bad as sending
Windows-1252 out as iso-8859-1. The problem is that many browsers do not
yet support iso-8859-1 and the systems do not have iso-8859-15 fonts.
> Hmm, are you sure? Netscape 4.7 can handle Korean pages in UTF-8
> as long as you limit Hangul syllables to the repertoire of KS X 1001
> (2350 of them).
We could only get NS 4.7 to work for the languages that it had been
localized.
>
> I agree with you on most of points, but it's not so insane to support
> Unicode and many other encodings with non-Unicode-based *fonts* (with
> Unicode at the hub/center of implementation) as shown by (Solaris and)
> Mozilla in a sense. Especially, it's reasonable thing to do when there
> are lots of non-Unicode-based *fonts* distributed and used everyday by
> target users. This is not to say Mozilla does not use Unicode-based fonts.
> It makes use of both of them.
Breaking text buffers into script segments a character at a time is a lot of
overhead and difficult to determine at times.
Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 13 2001 - 18:40:26 EDT