Hallo Richard!   
      
    RM> Most software used is incapable of displaying UTF-8 characters   
    RM> correctly.   
      
   True.  However using that as an excuse to hold others back who are willing and   
   capable to do what it takes to progess the network would be a shame to say the   
   least.   
      
    RM> (Mostly due to the software being written before UTF-8 was   
    RM> standardized.)   
      
   Not true.  UTF-8 has been around for decades now.  Definetly long before   
   golded+.   
      
   Speaking for myself, I started using UTF-8 for only the last few years and   
   before that only used ascii (the real 7 bit ascii) which for the mostpart I am   
   still using.  This particular reply is pure ascii.   
      
    RM> is NOT poorly identified, it is clearly stated that this   
    RM> character set is to be used:   
    RM> "ISO 8859-1 (Western European)"   
      
   I've seen it and have also seen it being misrepresented, buggy (such as the   
   examples I posted lately), and sometimes just plain wrong.  Also within this   
   particular ehoarea there might be more CP866 based posters than there are ISO   
   8859-1 posters, not to mention the true DOS-think CP437 people.  :::shudder:::   
      
   UTF-8 is the only universal encoding.   
      
   Het leven is goed,   
   Maurice   
      
   ... Huil niet om mij, ik heb vi.   
   --- GNU bash, version 4.4.23(1)-release (x86_64-bonnell-linux-gnu)   
    * Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint - Ladysmith BC, Canada (2:280/464.113)