ISO Latin 1 Character Entries
Timo Salmi
Character Entries
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo's procmail tips at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html
Alan J. Flavell
> But there is no
> char 136 = x88 in the Symbol font. So what's
> <font face="Symbol">à</font>
> supposed to be?
>
> MacOS Netscape Navigator displays ½ as question mark, whereas
> Internet Explorer displays it as "1/2" with three characters. So what's
> <font face="Symbol">½</font>
> supposed to be?
As I mentioned the last time that this standards-violating technique
was raised: there's a screenshot of a standards-conforming browser
displaying the "Symbol-font" version correctly (i.e NOT as the author
intended!), at http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/ts.gif
That browser is perfectly happy to display the characters that
Timo wanted, but only if you feed it the proper HTML for them.
I really couldn't advise people to rely on a bug, even though it's a
long-standing one. Well, it would not surprise me if MSIE would
choose to "support" this bug into the future, as I see that some of
their software products actually generate HTML that makes use of the
bug - in spite of the fact that their current browser versions seem to
have pretty good support for the real thing, and can perfectly well
cope with the proper HTML (HTML4.0) that's generated with the
translation tables that I produced for the rtftohtml program.
But (whatever MS might decide to do under the "assimilate the
standards" policy) I still could not recommend relying on a bug. As
Timo admits (but unfortunatly only in the small-print after the damage
has been done), the only way in HTML (including older versions) of
standing a good chance of getting exotic characters is with inlined
images. If you then supply appropriate ALT texts according to
HTML4.0, you have done the best you can within the rules of earlier
HTML versions.
For bonus points, one could supply two versions, and make them depend
on whether the client has included a unicode coding (such as utf-8)
amongst their accept-charset headers. With appropriate cache-control
and vary headers, like in the best cacheing tutorials, natch.
For anyone interested who didn't pick up the URLs last time around:
http://babel.alis.com/web_ml/html/fontface.en.html
also my short page on the topic
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/charset/fontface-harmful.html
cheers
Andreas Prilop
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
> As I mentioned the last time that this standards-violating technique
> was raised: there's a screenshot of a standards-conforming browser
> displaying the "Symbol-font" version correctly (i.e NOT as the author
> intended!), at http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/ts.gif
What happens when you feed it with 8-bit characters instead of à
and with "charset=x-user-defined"? Just curious.
--
Change "invalid" to "de" in e-mail address.
Timo Salmi
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
:In article <88kc0q$4...@loisto.uwasa.fi>,
:t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
:> but this situation indeed has all the hallmarks of a purity crusade.
:
:Speaking of "realism" and "fact", every Macintosh browser I know
:will display à as byte 136 = x88 on the Mac. That's because
:char 136 = x88 is an "a with grave" on the Mac. But there is no
:char 136 = x88 in the Symbol font. So what's
: <font face="Symbol">à</font>
:supposed to be?
Dear Andreas,
And why would it be supposed to be anything? There is ample
reference on the criticized page
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
to the fact that the solution is not generic and the problems! I
understand and appreciate what you and some others are after, but
you'll have to see the other side of the coin as well. The other
side of the coin is that there already are so many different
browsers and versions in circulation, that no new enforced standard
will provide a fully backwards compatible generic solution.
Please note that I am not against a Unicode or such standards, but I
have detected such a level of intolerance against partial solutions
like <font face="Symbol">à</font> in here which I just can't
consider entirely reasonable. I repeat that I pay ample homage to
the problems and thus I am not one-sidedly pressing only my view.
Can the linked critique pages honestly say quite the same or is this
rather a question of a symbolic dragon to slay?
Anyway, consider all the different web pages around the world. There
is a huge amount of incompatibility out there. It is better to face
to problems and calmly recognize them, not suppress them with wishes
of non-disclosure and such.
This is beside the discussed point, but I would be and am much more
worried about the excessive page sizes and loading times.
Finally, thank you Andreas for at least expressing what you see as
the problem. It is much more conductive than the recent throw at me
by Boris Ammerlaan. At the same time my compliments to A.J.Flavell
and Jukka Korpela for their earlier input by giving their views and
references to the font-face problem. That's more like it.
Andreas Prilop
t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> Please note that I am not against a Unicode or such standards, but I
> have detected such a level of intolerance against partial solutions
> like <font face="Symbol">à</font> in here which I just can't
> consider entirely reasonable.
From your point of view (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) it should
make no difference when you replace entities like "à" with
the corresponding 8-bit character "à". Why don't you just write
<font face="Symbol">à</font> ?
Since this is not ISO-8859-1 any more, why don't you just write
"charset=x-user-defined"?
I think the following would be less objectionable than your present
version:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=x-user-defined">
<font face="Symbol">à</font>
Please check this and tell us if it works as you intended.
Andreas Prilop
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
> The test document that I used is a mess and not really fit to put
> online, sorry.
I have a preliminary test page at
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/symbolfont.htmlx>
It works on Macintosh Netscape 4.x, i.e. there is no transcoding.
Timo's version with à doesn't work of course on a Mac.
Timo Salmi
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
:make no difference when you replace entities like "à" with
:the corresponding 8-bit character "à". Why don't you just write
:<font face="Symbol">à</font> ?
Dear Andreas,
Now you baffle me. I should write <font face="Symbol">à</font>
where? Instead of what, and what is preventing that, anyhow? I.e.
when and where on earth have I been advising not to use that
version?
:I think the following would be less objectionable than your present
:version:
Objectionable!? For heaven's sake! This is gradually getting scary.
It's one table in three with just comlumns of characters which show
as they may happen to show.
:<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=x-user-defined">
:<font face="Symbol">à</font>
:Please check this and tell us if it works as you intended.
Ah, that statement explains partly what you are so on about. I am
not expressing any intentions there. As I said, the entries will
show as they happen to show. Given apparent the hypersensitivity
about a <font face="Symbol">whatever</font> I think that you might
interpreting something that is just a table (and with my own stated
reservations at that) as something that I actively advocate and
press, and which you even wished me to scrap from the net.
But I do have one counter question to you and sundry, if you will.
Given the objections, why do at least some HTML editors produce
output using such code? Like for example what is produced at the end
by the Netscape Composer. So isn't your real beef is with e.g.
Netscape et al. rather than my http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
tables?
:Since this is not ISO-8859-1 any more, why don't you just write
:"charset=x-user-defined"?
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="Timo Salmi">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/4.08 [en] (Win16; I) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>TEST</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Symbol">à</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Timo Salmi
(Alan's excellent and covering analysis deleted for brevity)
Dear Alan,
:NS3.01 however displayed the &-forms wrongly[*] by using the Symbol
:font, i.e the same as the 8-bit characters.
:
:[*]"Wrongly" means "the way Timo wants". ;-)
Just one point here if I may. It is not my wanting to press a
particular solution. Obviously too much is being read into existence
of one part of that one web page of mine among the odd 500 that I
have. Besides, if it serves to raise relevant issues and problems,
all the better. You certainly can't fault me about not showing the
objections or sweeping them under the carpet. That's the length that
I have been quite willing to go, but as you may have seen I have set
the limit at scrapping the page altogether.
A personal note. For the record, the following does not concern you
Alan, nor Andreas in any way. Furthermore, I highly appreciate your
discussing this issue and if the situation indeed is of any use as a
further catalyst, good. However, I resent a related earlier message
by another party that subtly, between the lines hinted about a lack
of brightness from my part because of the material that I have at
display. No one likes to be called stupid, not even in such a
roundabout way.
Alan J. Flavell
> Objectionable!? For heaven's sake! This is gradually getting scary.
No, this isn't fair. Andreas seems to have offered a diplomatic
way out of this.
> It's one table in three with just comlumns of characters which show
> as they may happen to show.
That wasn't how it looked when we began to discuss this last month,
and, although you have added a whole swath of discussion after the
table, and added some kind of disclaimer in front of it, you can see
that we're still uneasy about the impression that it creates.
> But I do have one counter question to you and sundry, if you will.
> Given the objections, why do at least some HTML editors produce
> output using such code?
There is a clearly-defined interworking specification.
You are asking us why some people go and design software without
bothering to read it? Are we really supposed to be responsible for
finding an answer to that question? You can, at least, see that
Netscape's command of RFC2070 was so fundamentally misguided that its
authors have dismissed the possibility of it ever being properly
repaired, and have told us to wait for Mozilla to become a product.
> Like for example what is produced at the end
> by the Netscape Composer.
Netscape Compos(t)er certainly does not qualify as any kind of arbiter
of correctness as far as I am concerned, especially when trying to
achieve something that violates the published interworking
specifications. MS Office products even less so...
> So isn't your real beef is with e.g.
> Netscape et al. rather than my http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
> tables?
With both. The problem is that your tables are offered in an
inappropriate context. You have, it's true, now inserted a prefacing
remark:
Note: The true display at the user's end will depend on the
browser settings and version
but as far as I can see it, this leaves unsaid so many things that
uninformed readers will have mistakenly deduced for themselves: i.e
they are likely to presume that you were documenting this in order to
help them to use it, rather than as the documentation of a bug which
you were counseling them to avoid.
And indeed your continuing defence of the technique in this discussion
seems to confirm these misgivings, even though you say (and indeed you
do now quote yourself on that page as saying) that you don't use this
trick yourself.
> :Since this is not ISO-8859-1 any more, why don't you just write
> :"charset=x-user-defined"?
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META NAME="Author" CONTENT="Timo Salmi">
> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/4.08 [en] (Win16; I) [Netscape]">
> <TITLE>TEST</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <FONT FACE="Symbol">à</FONT>
I'm sorry, but that isn't any answer to the question that was asked.
Timo Salmi
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.invalid> wrote:
:In article <88mf8m$l...@loisto.uwasa.fi>,
:t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
:> Like for example what is produced at the end
:> by the Netscape Composer. So isn't your real beef is with e.g.
:No. You selected the encoding "Western" - instead of "User-Defined",
:which would be more appropriate.
Dear Andreas,
We are running in circles. You obviously will object to whatever I
do or say in this matter. Thus the exchange between you and me has
become more and more obstructive and is less and less worth
continuing.
:Please have a look at
:<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/symbolfont.htmlx>.
I was glad to do. It certainly is a nice page, certainly at par. But
should you seriously consider that presentation vastly superior and
exemplary, then (sorry) you are deceiving yourself at least as much
you think that I am doing with mine. Given your earlier vocal
objections to mine, I really was expecting something on quite a
different level.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Digital photos collection at http://www.uwasa.fi/ktt/lasktoim/photo/
Andreas Prilop
t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> You obviously will object to whatever I
> do or say in this matter.
How could you know that?
At least I comment only on what you actually wrote and I don't speculate
on what you will write in the future.
> :<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/symbolfont.htmlx>.
>
> But
> should you seriously consider that presentation vastly superior and
> exemplary,
This is a *test* page as I wrote in my message
<nhtcapri-ya0240800...@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>.
Its purpose is that you (and AJF) can examine your browser behavior.
And you can also compare the source with the source of your own page.
Andreas Prilop
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
> How would this jive with platforms that are not inherently
> iso-8859-1-compatible in their internal storage? I suspect this would
> cause indigestion on the Mac, no?
There is no transcoding of 8-bit characters in Netscape (and presumably
Internet Explorer) whenever charset=x-user-defined. Therefore you won't
get non-ASCII Latin-1 characters. And à displays as question mark
as you already noted.
Jukka Korpela
>The reader should also be aware that
>this method (which I do not use on my own pages) is stringently
>opposed to on valid factual grounds often with an addition of an
>element of aggressively held emotional component, up to a wish of
>a suppression of the table below.
That's ridiculous. If you admit that the table is factually wrong, you
make a fool of yourself by attacking unnamed people for being
aggressively emotional.
>Jukka, I am disappointed
>at your "you (i.e. I) still don't understand anything of this" line,
If you quote using quotation marks, you are expected to give a
verbatim copy of the quoted text, except for specifically indicated
changes. I am disappointed at your failure to comply with this
elementary principle. It may be true that you actually don't
understand anything of this; but I did not write that.
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ *** Happy 19100 to all! ***
Timo Salmi
Jukka Korpela <Jukka....@hut.fi> wrote:
:That's ridiculous. If you admit that the table is factually wrong, you
:make a fool of yourself by attacking unnamed people for being
Dear Jukka,
I does not really matter, since whatever I say or do is and will be
wrong in your eyes. Your undoubted excellence in technical expertise
is only matched by the lack of tact and single-mindedness in the
fault finding. Nothing obviously is satisfactory to you, or to your
cronies, so it is absolutely futile to continue any discussion
between us. We are best off killfiling each other.
Have a nice day.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo Salmi
Jukka Korpela <Jukka....@hut.fi> wrote:
:That's ridiculous. If you admit that the table is factually wrong, you
:make a fool of yourself by attacking unnamed people for being
Dear Jukka,
It does not really matter, since whatever I say or do is wrong in
your eyes. Your undoubted excellence in technical expertise is only
matched by the single-mindedness in your fault finding. Nothing from
me obviously is now satisfactory to you, and more or less to some of
your cronies, so it is absolutely non-productive and futile to
continue any discussion between us. When the postings unfailingly
only object and castigate, their information value drops to zero. We
Boris Ammerlaan
>In article <slrn8aqtsi...@toad.stack.nl>,
>Boris Ammerlaan <bo...@stack.nl> wrote:
>:In <88gh4a$i...@loisto.uwasa.fi>, Timo Salmi wrote:
>:>I have updated my table format rendition of the ISO Latin 1
>:>Character Entries
>
>:The *day* *after* my faith in humanity was restored (by a particularly
>:bright client) you have managed to destroy it again.
>
>Dear Boris,
>
>I am afraid that that outburst is neither very informative nor most
>constructive. What is your actual grievance?
- You updated something that should need no updating.
- You use the table element for something that could better
be handled by something else.
- You do so *badly*:
<TD>065<br>066...
<TD>A<br>B...
or some such nonsense.
- You posted it to a NG that in all probability (and in actuality,
although you might not have known that) has no need for it.
--
Boris Ammerlaan <bo...@stack.nl>, http://www.stack.nl/%7Eboris/
* HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/>
* c.i.w.a.h. FAQ List Pointer: posted twice a week &
<URL:http://www.stack.nl/%7Eboris/HTML/ciwahfaq.html>
Boris Ammerlaan
>However, I resent a related earlier message
>by another party that subtly, between the lines hinted about a lack
>of brightness from my part because of the material that I have at
>display. No one likes to be called stupid, not even in such a
>roundabout way.
I suppose that remark relates to me. I never intended to call
you stupid, and I do not think I did. However, it irritates me
when even a professor - who *does* have a reasonable measure of
intelligence, probably more than me - manages to get so many
basic things wrong.
Boris Ammerlaan
have mentioned. (That's what I get for trying to be concise;)
Arjun Ray
| >I am afraid that that outburst is neither very informative nor most
| >constructive. What is your actual grievance?
| - You posted it to a NG that in all probability (and in actuality,
| although you might not have known that) has no need for it.
Precisely why he posted it. Given the discussion the time before, he
had to have known that the responses would be unfavorable. The point,
therefore, was to prove to himself that his clearly superior ideas of
good and bad can rise above the narrow-minded doctrinaire concerns he
"knew" he would "find" here. IOW, he posted in order to confirm that
*he* would be trolled(!) And indeed, on his terms, he was.
Be thankful you weren't treated to theatrical rants (the hallmark of
Jorn Barger, the acknowledged master of this peculiar Usenet subgenre)
:ar
Timo Salmi
Daniel R. Tobias <d...@dantobias.com> wrote:
:I've got more on character-set issues at:
:http://www.dantobias.com/webtips/char.html
:including an explanation of why the "symbol-font" hack is wrong.
Thank you Dan. I have included also this link to the proper warnings
at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
Timo Salmi
Arjun Ray <aray+...@nyct.net> wrote:
:In <slrn8b0uqu...@toad.stack.nl>,
:bo...@toad.stack.nl (Boris Ammerlaan) wrote:
:| - You posted it to a NG that in all probability (and in actuality,
:| although you might not have known that) has no need for it.
:
:Precisely why he posted it. Given the discussion the time before, he
:had to have known that the responses would be unfavorable. The point,
:therefore, was to prove to himself that his clearly superior ideas of
:good and bad can rise above the narrow-minded doctrinaire concerns he
:"knew" he would "find" here. IOW, he posted in order to confirm that
Dear Arjun,
Thank your for your explanation of my alleged motives. However, I do
not harbor delusions of an access to superior information, nor is
this a troll.
My disagreement is not about the facts. This newsgroup has far
better experts at them than yours truly. But what I do object to,
are the more or less implicit hints of stupidity if one presents
interpretations and wordings that are not to the exact liking of the
undoubted experts of the newsgroup (this goes especially for Jukka
Korpela whom I know from other newsgroups as well). Also, in a way,
in the above Boris more or less self-appoints himself as the judge
of what is needed here by the gentle readers and what is not. It is
obvious that there is low social tolerance on any alternative, or
even just additional information among this newsgroup. Such a
situation is unfortunate, wasteful and even outright suppressive.
Also mind you, I have honed the castigated information a lot based
on the calmer feedback given here, in particular by Alan Flavell. It
is now highly unlikely that any first-time visitor would take
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
as an endorsement of the symbol alternative. Rather the contrary. It
comes now much more out as a warning. So I have listened! But to
scrap altogether, no!
Why an alternative, anyway? A different arrangement, a different
table. We do not (quite) live in a one-product, one-option world
yet. Furthermore, the symbol aspect has grown here way out of
proportion. It is not the main theme of the page. Just a side issue.
Boris Ammerlaan
>In article <rri1bsk9rvoq5pe96...@4ax.com>,
>Arjun Ray <aray+...@nyct.net> wrote:
>:In <slrn8b0uqu...@toad.stack.nl>,
>:bo...@toad.stack.nl (Boris Ammerlaan) wrote:
>:| - You posted it to a NG that in all probability (and in actuality,
>:| although you might not have known that) has no need for it.
>Korpela whom I know from other newsgroups as well). Also, in a way,
>in the above Boris more or less self-appoints himself as the judge
>of what is needed here by the gentle readers and what is not.
I freak out _one time_ and it continues to be used against me.
(Rightly so :( )
What I meant was that enough information was already posted to the
NG about the *correct* usage of Latin-1 characters, and that your
- had it even been (marginally) correct, and not just a hack - was
superfluous, I*M*O.
>It is
>obvious that there is low social tolerance on any alternative, or
>even just additional information among this newsgroup.
There is a low tolerance for misinformation, yes.
>Also mind you, I have honed the castigated information a lot based
>on the calmer feedback given here, in particular by Alan Flavell.
Then for the most part, we are satisfied. :-)
>It
>is now highly unlikely that any first-time visitor would take
>
> http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html
>
>as an endorsement of the symbol alternative. Rather the contrary. It
>comes now much more out as a warning.
#include /usr/local/songs/RenStimpy/HappyHappyJoyJoy.mp3
>So I have listened! But to
>scrap altogether, no!
Hey, that's why we answer! To convince the author to improve somewhat.
>Why an alternative, anyway? A different arrangement, a different
>table. We do not (quite) live in a one-product, one-option world
>yet. Furthermore, the symbol aspect has grown here way out of
>proportion. It is not the main theme of the page. Just a side issue.
Hm... Well, we *could* bitch a bit more about the FONT's COLOR attribute
inside a table... <:>
--
Boris Ammerlaan bo...@stack.nl http://www.stack.nl/%7Eboris/
Alan J. Flavell
> In <895909$p...@loisto.uwasa.fi>, Timo Salmi wrote:
> >Also mind you, I have honed the castigated information a lot based
> >on the calmer feedback given here, in particular by Alan Flavell.
It's a pity then that a page that is supposed to be about techical
issues is offered with such partisan language as:
"often with an addition of an element of an aggressively held
emotional component"
I continue to take the view that this table has no business being on
a web page that claims, both by its title and by its URL, to be
documenting "ISO Latin 1".
Since you are clearly not to be dissuaded from presenting it at all,
I recommend moving it to a separate linked page, as I said before.
A. Prilop (and, as he has shown, the same point is made by Ian
Hutchinson on his tth pages) has described a technique which not only
diplomatically side-steps some of the objectionable features of this
trick, but also enables it to "work" over a wider range of browsing
situations. Namely, the use of 8-bit characters.
> > We do not (quite) live in a one-product, one-option world
> >yet.
Which is all the more reason for steering people away from kludges
that violate the published interworking specifications, and which,
objectively, work even less on standards-conforming browsers than they
appear to work on old browser/versions that are being (ab)used beyond
their design limits...
> >Furthermore, the symbol aspect has grown here way out of
> >proportion. It is not the main theme of the page. Just a side issue.
Which confirms my belief that this <QUOTE>side issue</QUOTE> needs to
be moved out of the way of anything that claims to document ISO Latin
1.
In short, your own arguments strengthen my view that - if the table is
to continue to be presented - it should be on a separate page,
complete with its caveats and disclaimers.
But the use of ISO Latin 1 entity names rather than 8-bit characters
seems, in the face of the reasoning shown by A.P and I.H, to make the
kludge even worse than it need be. I've documented this, with what I
think are suitable comments based on technical issues, towards the end
of my web page
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/charset/fontface-harmful.html
Timo Salmi
Boris Ammerlaan <bo...@stack.nl> wrote:
:I freak out _one time_ and it continues to be used against me.
:(Rightly so :( )
Dear Boris,
I will not repeat that any more.
:>Also mind you, I have honed the castigated information a lot based
:>on the calmer feedback given here, in particular by Alan Flavell.
:Then for the most part, we are satisfied. :-)
Good.
:Hey, that's why we answer! To convince the author to improve somewhat.
And that's why I listen to a reasonable tune and take into account
what seems usable.
:Hm... Well, we *could* bitch a bit more about the FONT's COLOR attribute
:inside a table... <:>
Yes, I know. Another quirk with HTML and browsers.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo Salmi
Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Thank you for your good comments. A clarification.
:Which confirms my belief that this <QUOTE>side issue</QUOTE> needs to
:be moved out of the way of anything that claims to document ISO Latin
:1.
The page has three different parts:
ISO Latin 1 Character Entries
ISO Latin 1 Character Entries (Hex)
<FONT FACE="symbol">X</FONT>
Only the first two make a direct reference to ISO Latin 1.
:issues is offered with such partisan language as:
: "often with an addition of an element of an aggressively held
: emotional component"
Ok, I'll lighten up the wording a bit, but the heat generated along
technical issues remains is an undeniable fact in this and earlier
debates. And it is not just that partisan. Besides, it concerns me,
quite as well.
Tom Neff
http://www.panix.com/~tneff/salmi1.gif
as an example of a completely random person using a completely normal
browser, visiting your page and looking at what your table renders.
You might also want to link to
http://www.panix.com/~tneff/rendent.html
which lists all the entities in W3C style and renders them on your browser
without distracting tables or font tricks.
Timo Salmi
Tom Neff <tn...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: http://www.panix.com/~tneff/salmi1.gif
Thank you Tom. Appreciated. That incidentally shows the same way I
see it on my system.
:You might also want to link to
: http://www.panix.com/~tneff/rendent.html
Good. I'll insert the link.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Andreas Prilop
t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> Thank you Tom. Appreciated. That incidentally shows the same way I
> see it on my system.
OK. Here is what you see on a Macintosh with Netscape Navigator 4.x
*IF* you have document fonts enabled:
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/salmi.gif>
If you do not have document fonts enabled (which is *my* normal setting),
you do not see any glyphs from the Symbol font at all.
I think further discussion about <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/latin1.html>
is pointless.
Arjun Ray
| Thank your for your explanation of my alleged motives.
You offered the best explanation yourself:
> Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.invalid> wrote:
> :t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> :> You obviously will object to whatever I do or say in this matter.
> :
> :How could you know that?
> :At least I comment only on what you actually wrote and I don't speculate
> :on what you will write in the future.
>
> Right there! I rest my case.
The equation, comment == objection, said it all.
| My disagreement is not about the facts.
Er, obviously.
--
NETSCAPISM /net-'sca-,pi-z*m/ n (1995): habitual diversion of the mind
to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from
the realization that the Internet was built by and for someone else.
-- Erik Naggum
Timo Salmi
Arjun Ray <aray+...@nyct.net> wrote:
:You offered the best explanation yourself:
:The equation, comment == objection, said it all.
:Er, obviously.
Dear Arjun,
Since you went back and combed through various postings for aspects
marginal to the actual subject, I am left baffled by what is it that
you actually want. Just to defy? If so, your defiance is duly noted.
Hopefully happy now?
Followups redirected.
Jukka Korpela
>- - what I do object to,
>are the more or less implicit hints of stupidity if one presents
>interpretations and wordings that are not to the exact liking of the
>undoubted experts of the newsgroup (this goes especially for Jukka
>Korpela whom I know from other newsgroups as well).
Don't you think it's a bit immoral to make a personal assault on me
after you suggested that we should killfile each other? If I had
applied your suggestion, I would not have seen this message and could
not defend myself. Well, perhaps you won't see mine, but then it's a
problem you created.
You were criticized by me for _repeating misinformation_ after correct
information was presented in the preceding discussion. And also for
presenting things in very odd light, which is what you still do,
describing matters of facts as matters of personal opinions ("exact
liking") and yourself as a martyr. Your stubbornness would deserve a
better cause.
Now you are turning this into something really ridiculous. If your
document were just a new presentation of ISO Latin 1, in a personal
style, it wouldn't matter that much. Not that it would deserve much
advertizing and discussion; it would be one among dozens, nothing very
exciting. But you kept presenting something totally unrelated, which
was in fact misinformation.
If you say that you don't propose that people actually use the <font
face="Symbol"> thing, why (1) describe it on a page (which is said to
discuss something else) in the first place and (2) keep announcing
that page?
>Why an alternative, anyway? A different arrangement, a different
>table.
Yawn. It was mildly interesting on first sight.
>Furthermore, the symbol aspect has grown here way out of
>proportion.
It has, and that's because _you_ had put it onto your page, _you_ did
not learn from the first discussion, and _you_ attack people who point
out that it is bogus.
Look, there are _real_ problems with ISO Latin 1, even in HTML
authoring. But writing tables of ISO Latin 1 characters in new colors
does not help much. Instead, we might try to do something about the
problem that people just pick up good-looking characters from various
tables and start using them - without checking the _meanings_ of the
characters. (And the <font face="Symbol"> thing surely _increases_
confusion in such matters.) So we have pages which use SHARP S as
letter beta, or contain MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR instead of DEGREE
SIGN since in _some fonts_ they look very similar, etc. You're invited
to suggest contributions to my collection of information about such
matters: http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/latin1/
Timo Salmi
Jukka Korpela <Jukka....@hut.fi> wrote:
:Don't you think it's a bit immoral to make a personal assault on me
:describing matters of facts as matters of personal opinions ("exact
:liking") and yourself as a martyr. Your stubbornness would deserve a
:better cause.
:Now you are turning this into something really ridiculous. If your
:Yawn. It was mildly interesting on first sight.
:not learn from the first discussion, and _you_ attack people who point
:out that it is bogus.
Dear Jukka and others,
This has gone far enough. Whether it is entirely my fault, or partly
yours or anyone else's, the tone of the exchange obviously is
getting so accusatory and uncompromising in its fault-finding both
ways that I am withdrawing from the present discussion and the
hostilities. The issue simply is not worth additional relationships
damage.