Hello,
On 18-11-2003 you (Erik Moeller) wrote:
Tomasz-
> * broken browsers - they should be upgraded, if someone has browser so
> old
> that it doesn't grok UTF-8, it's not going to grok CSS,
> PNGs, and other things we're using either.
> Unless we want to remove all CSS and PNGs, there's
> no point in not using UTF-8.
Is this true?
No, it isn't. Though in some bowserd these developments were in the same
timeframe, in others they weren't. It also ignores two other obvious
points:
- Without CSS a page should stll be readable. Without PNG a page should
still be readable. Mess up the encoding and the page becomes a rebus, at
best.
- The gift of looking through the Ethernet wires and telephone cables into
all the computer rooms in the world is sufficiently rare that one should
never demand a user to upgrade. Feel free to tell the user you're too lazy
to support their software but blaming the break on them is quite insulting.
So, what are our plans of doing this in a way that will allow the W to
adapt, so as to not drive away anyone?
EM> All I know is that we had a *lot* of problems with broken
EM> special chars on the Meta-Wiki during the logo contest. I have no idea
EM> which browser broke them, but it seems to be a not totally uncommon one,
EM> perhaps in the 5% range. Given that a single edit by such a person will
EM> break an entire page, it might not be so wise to switch (but perhaps I'm
EM> missing something -- is Meta running UTF-8?).
We, Fy:, are having this problem now, but here it appears it has something
to do with our language files. One language file is OK, though the
localisation is less than perfect, the next improved version is not.
(There are also still some English-language strings that I can't seem to
find in the language-file, but that's probably another matter.)
Sincerely,
--
Aliter