Prev: Problem in image placing
Next: Google checkout nightmare
From: "Bob McConnell" on 27 May 2010 15:28
From: tedd

> The Unicode database uses the same lower
> character values (i.e., "code points") as does
> ASCII, namely 0-127, and thus UFT-8 (8-bit
> variable width encoding) is really a super-set
> which includes the sub-set of ASCII.
>
> The "Wingdings" font that Ash refers to is the
> really the "Dingbat" char set in Unicode, as
> shown here:
>
> The use of UFT-8 encoding in everything (web and
> php) should present much less problems globally
> than it is trying to fight it.

Thanks tedd,

The real question is whether unicode is even relevant now that the UTF
series is available. I see no reason to have to deal with two competing
"specifications", when one of them is more than adequate for the job and
the other is not even finished yet. That's like the old days when a few
users demanded we support both ASCII and EBCDIC. That didn't get very
far either.

Bob McConnell
From: Ashley Sheridan on 27 May 2010 15:33
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:28 -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:

> From: tedd
>
> > The Unicode database uses the same lower
> > character values (i.e., "code points") as does
> > ASCII, namely 0-127, and thus UFT-8 (8-bit
> > variable width encoding) is really a super-set
> > which includes the sub-set of ASCII.
> >
> > The "Wingdings" font that Ash refers to is the
> > really the "Dingbat" char set in Unicode, as
> > shown here:
> >
> > The use of UFT-8 encoding in everything (web and
> > php) should present much less problems globally
> > than it is trying to fight it.
>
> Thanks tedd,
>
> The real question is whether unicode is even relevant now that the UTF
> series is available. I see no reason to have to deal with two competing
> "specifications", when one of them is more than adequate for the job and
> the other is not even finished yet. That's like the old days when a few
> users demanded we support both ASCII and EBCDIC. That didn't get very
> far either.
>
> Bob McConnell
>


Bob, UTF is unicode (Unicode Transformation Format)

Interesting enough to note, and not sure if Tedd knows this or not (he
probably does!) but Chrome has a nice feature for those punycode URLs;
it suggests the actual real URL instead once you type the domain in. Not
sure about Safari right now, couldn't be bothered to fire up a VM just
to check. I would assume Firefox handles these URLs well enough too.

Tedd, does that URL actually go anywhere, as I got nothing when I tried
visiting it, both the actual URL and the punycode version.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


From: "Guus Ellenkamp" on 27 May 2010 23:47
And I need(ed) this stuff especially for non-ASCII characters like Chinese,
Arabic and stuff :)

"Ashley Sheridan" <ash(a)ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1274976794.2202.274.camel(a)localhost...
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 12:08 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Guus Ellenkamp
> <Ellenkamp_Guus(a)hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Thanks, but are you sure of that? I did some research a while ago and
> > found
> > that officially PHP files should be ascii and not have any specific
> > character encoding. I believe it will work anyhow (did not try this
> > one),
> > but would like to stick with the standards.
> >
> > "Ashley Sheridan" <ash(a)ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1274883714.2202.228.camel(a)localhost...
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 22:20 +0800, Guus Ellenkamp wrote:
> > >
> > >> We use PHP defines for defining text in different languages. As far
> > >> as I
> > >> know PHP files are supposed to be ASCII, not UTF-8 or something like
> > >> that.
> > >> What I want to make is a conversion program that would convert a
> > >> given
> > >> UTF-8
> > >> file with the format
> > >>
> > >> definetext1=this is a text in random UTF-8, probably arabic or
> > >> similar
> > >> text
> > >> definetext2=this is another text in random UTF-8, probably arabic or
> > >> similar
> > >> text
> > >>
> > >> into a file with the following defines
> > >>
> > >>
> > define('definetext1',chr(<t_value>).chr(<h_value>).chr(<i_value>)...<chr(<x_value>).chr(<t_value>));
> > >>
> > define('definetext2,chr(<t_value>).chr(<h_value>).chr(<i_value>)...<chr(<x_value>).chr(<t_value>));
> > >>
> > >> Not sure if I'm using the correct chr/ord function, but I hope the
> > >> above
> > >> is
> > >> clear enough to make clear what I'm looking for. Basically the output
> > >> file
> > >> should be ascii and not contain any utf-8.
> > >>
> > >> Any advise? The html_special_chars did not seem to work for
> > >> Vietnamese
> > >> text
> > >> I tried to convert, so something seems to get wrong with just reading
> > >> an
> > >> array of strings and converting the strings and putting them in
> > >> defines.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > PHP files can contain utf-8, and in-fact is the preference of most
> > > developers I know of.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ash
> > > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
> Because the lower range of UTF-8 matches the ascii character set
> (intentionally by design), you'll be able to use UTF-8 for PHP files
> without
> problem (i.e., ascii 7-bit chars have same encoding in UTF-8.)
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html
>
> However, if you were to use any of the multibyte characters of UTF-8 in a
> PHP file, you could run in to some trouble. I use UTF-8 for most of my
> PHP
> files, but I've been sticking to the ASCII subset exclusively.
>
> Adam
>


I don't use the higher range of characters often, but I do sometimes use
them for things like the graphical glyphs (�??, etc) I know I could do
those with regular text and the Wingdings font, but that's not available
on every computer, and breaks the semantic meaning behind the glyphs.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk




From: "Guus Ellenkamp" on 27 May 2010 23:51
I would like if you stick to the original issue: can a PHP source file be in
utf-8. It's not about the output, that is properly supported.

Think it would be a good idea anyhow that PHP would support utf-8 source
files as it seems utf-8 is going to be the de-facto standard for text files
anyhow.

"Ashley Sheridan" <ash(a)ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1274988834.2202.285.camel(a)localhost...
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:28 -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>> From: tedd
>>
>> > The Unicode database uses the same lower
>> > character values (i.e., "code points") as does
>> > ASCII, namely 0-127, and thus UFT-8 (8-bit
>> > variable width encoding) is really a super-set
>> > which includes the sub-set of ASCII.
>> >
>> > The "Wingdings" font that Ash refers to is the
>> > really the "Dingbat" char set in Unicode, as
>> > shown here:
>> >
>> > The use of UFT-8 encoding in everything (web and
>> > php) should present much less problems globally
>> > than it is trying to fight it.
>>
>> Thanks tedd,
>>
>> The real question is whether unicode is even relevant now that the UTF
>> series is available. I see no reason to have to deal with two competing
>> "specifications", when one of them is more than adequate for the job and
>> the other is not even finished yet. That's like the old days when a few
>> users demanded we support both ASCII and EBCDIC. That didn't get very
>> far either.
>>
>> Bob McConnell
>>
>
>
> Bob, UTF is unicode (Unicode Transformation Format)
>
> Interesting enough to note, and not sure if Tedd knows this or not (he
> probably does!) but Chrome has a nice feature for those punycode URLs;
> it suggests the actual real URL instead once you type the domain in. Not
> sure about Safari right now, couldn't be bothered to fire up a VM just
> to check. I would assume Firefox handles these URLs well enough too.
>
> Tedd, does that URL actually go anywhere, as I got nothing when I tried
> visiting it, both the actual URL and the punycode version.
>
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>
>
>


From: Ashley Sheridan on 28 May 2010 02:27
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:51 +0800, Guus Ellenkamp wrote:

> I would like if you stick to the original issue: can a PHP source file be in
> utf-8. It's not about the output, that is properly supported.
>
> Think it would be a good idea anyhow that PHP would support utf-8 source
> files as it seems utf-8 is going to be the de-facto standard for text files
> anyhow.
>
> "Ashley Sheridan" <ash(a)ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1274988834.2202.285.camel(a)localhost...
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:28 -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> From: tedd
> >>
> >> > The Unicode database uses the same lower
> >> > character values (i.e., "code points") as does
> >> > ASCII, namely 0-127, and thus UFT-8 (8-bit
> >> > variable width encoding) is really a super-set
> >> > which includes the sub-set of ASCII.
> >> >
> >> > The "Wingdings" font that Ash refers to is the
> >> > really the "Dingbat" char set in Unicode, as
> >> > shown here:
> >> >
> >> > The use of UFT-8 encoding in everything (web and
> >> > php) should present much less problems globally
> >> > than it is trying to fight it.
> >>
> >> Thanks tedd,
> >>
> >> The real question is whether unicode is even relevant now that the UTF
> >> series is available. I see no reason to have to deal with two competing
> >> "specifications", when one of them is more than adequate for the job and
> >> the other is not even finished yet. That's like the old days when a few
> >> users demanded we support both ASCII and EBCDIC. That didn't get very
> >> far either.
> >>
> >> Bob McConnell
> >>
> >
> >
> > Bob, UTF is unicode (Unicode Transformation Format)
> >
> > Interesting enough to note, and not sure if Tedd knows this or not (he
> > probably does!) but Chrome has a nice feature for those punycode URLs;
> > it suggests the actual real URL instead once you type the domain in. Not
> > sure about Safari right now, couldn't be bothered to fire up a VM just
> > to check. I would assume Firefox handles these URLs well enough too.
> >
> > Tedd, does that URL actually go anywhere, as I got nothing when I tried
> > visiting it, both the actual URL and the punycode version.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ash
> > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


Yes is the quick answer.

There's no better way than to try it yourself.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Problem in image placing
Next: Google checkout nightmare