|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 11/23/93 11:44
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon wrote:
> I was asked to have a look at a page that apparently does not display
> Persian language.
....
> http://journalhome.com/razavi
Most if it looks plausible to me, although I don't read Persian
(Farsi).
> The obvious 2 problems is that the pages does not have doctype or
> Charest.
Absence of DOCTYPE is no reason for a browser to fail to display,
although it'll mean the page is rendered in quirks mode by browsers
which do that sort of thing.
Well, a glance at the source indicates that it's been extruded by some
MS Office tool, so I wouldn't expect much.
> I have tried it with FF and IE and they both look ok without DOCTYPE
> and Charest.
You seem to be consistent in mis-typing that MIME attribute name :-}
> So what default are been used?
Most of the content appears to have been included as &#number;
references instead of actual coded characters; so specifying any
character encoding (charset=) which includes us-ascii would be
sufficient to get that rendered correctly.
> Because whatever I add it does not display properly.
You're not giving very much of a clue as to what kind of "improperly"
you/they are seeing.
There aren't many actual coded characters in the document, which makes
it hard to do diagnostics on that aspect. I can't find an encoding
which is consistent with them all.
My guess is that it's not all in the same encoding, and, as such, is
hopelessly broken. My hunch is that it's in a mixture of Windows-1256
and utf-8, but as I can't actually read Farsi, I could be wrong.
> Also the user claims that we don't support "persian languages".
Pardon? Who's "we", and why should that be a limitation on alt.html?
As for DOCTYPE, there isn't one that fits the kind of garbage that
gets extruded by MS. Whichever of the W3C DOCTYPEs you use, you're
going to get handfuls of validation errors against it. If their
software doesn't supply one, I'd recommend leaving it that way - well,
what I would *really* recommend is changing to some software that's
capable of generating valid HTML, but presumably that isn't an option
for you.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|