From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:37:50 CST
J.B. Moreno wrote:
> And when someone complains and says that =?ISO-8859-15?Q?erron=E9s?= is
> completely unreadable?
"Completely unreadable" is an exaggeration, to put it mildly. It's
quite clear that 6/7 characters are fine; one can transcribe or
print it just fine, and one can look at an ISO-8859-15 table
(and as it's tagged, one knows to look at *that* table) such
as the one at http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html to
see that an E9 is a lower-case e with an acute accent.
> Sure that won't happen very often, but ten year old
> software is still being used.
So upgrade or live with it; your choice and only you are
affected either way.
> Now it won't display the UTF-8 correctly
> either, but it won't mess it up as much either: erronés.
I can't tell what that's suppsed to be -- it looks like 8 characters
rather than 7, I can't transcribe it, and printing it would be
pointless (and might very well yield something different to what
is displayed), there is no clue as to where to look to figure
out what it's supposed to be (and even if I suspect utf-8, I
have to decode that to get a code point to look up). *That's*
"completely unreadable".