news-misc@ada.dhs.org wrote:
In article <3E1BDE62.2030003@koha-fr.org>, nicolas morin <nicolas@koha-fr.org> wrote:
dbkliv wrote:
ISO-10646 (Unicode) is probably the strongest bet here.
I'd be happy to hear more about that...
Using ISO-10646 directly is not necessary. This is because the HTML 4.0 standard defines ISO-10646 as the underlying character set of all HTML documents, no matter how you encode the document. (That is the reason why entities (the &...; sequences) can work at all -- HTML entities are long-hand aliases to ISO-10646 characters.)
I wasn't aware of this - though it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious what the problems are with representing French with Unicode (of whatever form). The special French characters (é etc.) all fall into the first 256 characters of ASCII, and similarly of Unicode - at that low range, the two are nearly identical, aren't they? At any rate, French translation is not my forte; I tend to deal with different languages. So I'm honestly just passingly curious, not challenging you here. :) Your further comments about UCS-2 vs UTF-8 are well worth noting for translators.