Re[4]: IE <5.5 vs IE >=5.5 statistics? (Should we use UTF-8?)

by Anton Tagunov <tae(at)>

 Date:  Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:14:21 +0300
 To:  "cbirds(at)" <cbirds(at)>
 Cc:  hwg-techniques(at)
 References:  mediaone
  todo: View Thread, Original
cen> Why waste time on stats? I just code in the browser of my choice, then
cen> check it in all others. I find I have the least to fix that way and 
cen> usually its an error I made for all of them. And I  rarely get reports of 
cen> things not being seen.

That's a Hamlet's question: to UTF-8 or not to UTF-8?

(I assume most of us probably understand the
advantages/disadvantages of UTF-8/ascii+&#xyzw;/other encodings/etc.

In a similar discussion at comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Alan J. Flavell" <flavell(at)> has mentioned his articles
that may probably come helpful for the interested parties.)

My original question was not
- in what browsers is UTF-8 borken,
  since an approximate answer is known: IE < 5.5,  NN <6
and not
- what can we do to workaround that,
  since we are probably aware of the alternatives
  (ascii+&#xyzw/other encoidigs)

My question was: how many browsers are there
that are known not to handle UTF-8 encoded pages properly?

That's why spend time on stats: major design decisions
(choice between UTF-8/ascii+&#xyzw/other encoidigs/etc.)
depend on them.

-Best regards, Anton

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA