What are the advantages and disadvantages of using either of the following?
When I use utf-8 on one site, it first displays the site in Chinese
characters on Netscape 4... only with that one site. It immediately
switches back to English though...
You should use whichever META tag most accurately reflects the character
set used by your page. That sounds useless and like I'm evading the
question, but it really is the best possible answer. (Except to say that
it's better to use a *real* HTTP header than this META tag.)
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of using either of the following?
> When I use utf-8 on one site, it first displays the site in Chinese
> characters on Netscape 4... only with that one site. It immediately
> switches back to English though...
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
news:alt.html is a group outside the regular Usenet hierarchy.
It is carried by few servers - not by mine, for example.
I suggest to post to the regular Usenet group
> The advantage of UTF-8 (which is a concrete representation of the more
> abstract "Unicode" set of characters) is that it has vastly more
> characters than ISO-8859-1.
That is true, but the repertoire of characters that you can use in an UTF-8
encoded HTML document is exactly the same the one you can use in an ISO-
8859-1 encoded document, namely UCS, the Universal Character Set, also
known as the Unicode character set. The reason is that you can use
character references like 〹 to overcome the limitations of the
UTF-8 becomes advantageous with respect to ISO-8859-1 if you use _many_
characters outside the ISO-8859-1 repertoire.
> The advantage of ISO-8859-1 is that is enjoys slightly wider support
> than UTF-8.
Besides, ISO-8859-1 is more compact for most West European languages:
it uses one octet per character, whereas UTF-8 uses two octets for any
character in the upper half of the ISO-8859-1 repertoire.