Is there a way to put a ▐ (ascii value of 222) in html character codes? (e.g. Þ)?
Is this possible? If not, is there some way to make sure it is reliably rendered by a browser?
Using the official W3 Character Reference sheet, we can find what you're looking for. You have several options:
█
█
█
█
▮
▮
▮
▮
❘
❘
❘
❘
You can then take this a step further by looking into various Unicode regions. This region has a few similar lines:
▌
▌
▍
▍
▎
▎
▏
▏
▐
▐
Note that you'll have to perform browser tests yourself, as not all browsers will be able to render these symbols. Ensuring that your page is in an appropriate UTF format (i.e. UTF-8) will help greatly.
I don't know from where you got "ascii value of 222". ASCII only goes to 127.
The character appears (to me) to be a U+2590 RIGHT HALF BLOCK. In HTML you can use ▐.
is there some way to make sure it is reliably rendered by a browser?
Yes: encode your document as UTF-8 (really – it’s the default on the web and the best choice nowadays) and include the character directly in the document.
Every modern text editor / IDE supports saving documents as UTF-8. To serve it to the browser, specify the encoding in the <head> section:
<meta charset="utf-8">
(This is HTML5; older versions are slightly different) and specify it in the HTTP header when serving the document from a server. Most servers are already configured to do this correctly.
HTML escape sequences, while still useful in certain scenarios, are by no means the easiest way of using arbitrary characters in HTML code.
Also, as others have noted, there’s some confusion here: ASCII only goes up to 127, there’s no ASCII character 222. Furthermore, ASCII is severely outdated and used almost nowhere nowadays. Most of the time, when somebody says “ASCII” they mean something else, and unfortunately they always mean different things. This is another reason to use Unicode and UTF-8 throughout: it avoids confusion.
I believe you have answered your own question. The other HTML entity for that character is Þ
Depending on your doctype, any compliant browser should render the character correctly.
Related
I had an issue earlier today where someone couldn't compile a static site due to some non-ASCII characters in a kramdown file. While writing a small script that finds these characters in our content, I ran across a large number of non-HTML encoded special characters.
What are the implications in including these characters directly in the HTML? Take the © character.
If I include the character directly in HTML, it seems to render correctly in my browser. That being said, I don't know the side-effects for those who don't have fonts installed that support these characters.
What are the side effects of leaving these non-ASCII characters in the HTML? I know in some situations it can lead to strange (?) characters showing up, but I'd like more specific information on how these special characters get rendered.
If I HTML encode these special characters and a client doesn't have a font that supports them, does it show the same (?) character? Is there any meaningful difference between using the HTML-encoded vs non encoded characters?usign
Is there any meaningful difference between using the HTML-encoded vs non encoded characters?
Not in terms of the browser being able to display them in general.
If you want to use these as you call them "non-standard" characters (which are very much standard characters, just not ASCII characters), you should specify an encoding, preferably utf-8. The HTML5 way of doing this (which is backwards compatible and supported by pretty much all browsers) is
<meta charset="utf-8">
That said, some tools compiling static HTML from markdown etc. might have problems with it, but that depends on the tool. You're safer using the entities like © there; which you can also always use without specifying an encoding.
This is not the full story, as the way a browser is decoding a file can also be influenced by other factors, like HTTP Response Headers. Also, even if you omit it, as you could observe, browsers do everything they can to still parse it correctly, there's just no guarantee.
I've recently noticed a lot of high profile sites using characters directly in their source, eg:
<q>“Hi there”</q>
Rather than:
<q>“Hi there”</q>
Which of these is preferred? I've always used entities in the past, but using the character directly seems more readable, and would seem to be OK in a Unicode document.
If the encoding is UTF-8, the normal characters will work fine, and there is no reason not to use them. Browsers that don't support UTF-8 will have lots of other issues while displaying a modern webpage, so don't worry about that.
So it is easier and more readable to use the characters and I would prefer to do so.
It also saves a couple of bytes which is good, although there is much more to gain by using compression and minification.
The main advantage I can see with encoding characters is that they'll look right, even if the page is interpreted as ASCII.
For example, if your page is just a raw HTML file, the default settings on some servers would be to serve it as text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 (the default in HTTP 1.1). Even if you set the meta tag for content-type, the HTTP header has higher priority.
Whether this matters depends on how likely the page is to be served by a misconfigured server.
It is better to use characters directly. They make for: easier to read code.
Google's HTML style guide advocates for the same. The guide itself can be found here:
Google HTML/CSS Style guide.
Using characters directly. They are easier to read in the source (which is important as people do have to edit them!) and require less bandwidth.
The example given is definitely wrong, in theory as well as in practice, in HTML5 and in HTML 4. For example, the HTML5 discussions of q markup says:
“Quotation punctuation (such as quotation marks) that is quoting the contents of the element must not appear immediately before, after, or inside q elements; they will be inserted into the rendering by the user agent.”
That is, use either ´q’ markup or punctuation marks, not both. The latter is better on all practical accounts.
Regarding the issue of characters vs. entity references, the former are preferable for readability, but then you need to know how to save the data as UTF-8 and declare the encoding properly. It’s not rocket science, and usually better. But if your authoring environment is UTF-8 hostile, you need not be ashamed of using entity references.
Currently, I have my webpage set to Unicode/UTF-8. When trying to display a special character (for example, em dash, double arrow, etc), it shows up as a question mark symbol. I cannot change these characters to the HTML entity equivalent. How can I circumvent this issue?
A question mark in a lozenge, �, indicates a character-level error: the data contains bytes that do no represent any character, according to the character encoding being applied. This typically happens when the document is declared as UTF-8 encoded but is really in iso-8859-1, windows-1252, or some similar encoding. Windows-1252 is a common default encoding used by various programs on Windows platforms. So you may need to open the file in your authoring program and re-save it as UTF-8 encoded.
If problems remain, please post the URL. Posting the code alone is not sufficient, since the character encoding is primarily specified in HTTP headers.
If you see a question mark in a small box, then it might be a font-level problem (lack of glyph in the fonts being used), but this would be very rare for common characters like the em dash. Different browsers have different ways of indicating character- or font-level problems.
Make sure your document is set to the correct character encoding in the actual code editor, as well as in the doctype. Both are necessary. I spent hours trying to tweak HTML when the only problem was that I needed to set the text setting in Coda.
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
See the following screenshot:
Make sure your characters are actually UTF-8 characters. They will probably look something like this:
® or U+0020
http://www.kinsmancreative.com/transfer/char/index.php is a handy site for finding the decimal values of commonly used UTF-8 special characters if you need a reference.
I'm bulding a site and I've set its content type to use charset UTF-8. I'm also using HTML encoding for the special characters, ie: instead of having á I've got á.
Now I wonder (still bulding the site) if it was really necesary to do both things. Looking for the answer I found this:
http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-escapes.en.php
It says that I shoud not use HTML encoding for any special characters but for >, < and &. But the reason is that escapes
can make it difficult to read and maintain source code, and can also significantly increase file size.
I think that's true but very poor argument. Is it really THE SAME thing using the escapes and the special characters?
The article is in fact correct. If you have proper UTF-8 encoded data, there is no reason to use HTML entities for special characters on normal web pages any more.
I say "on normal web pages", because there are highly exotic borderline scenarios where using entities is still the safest bet (e.g. when serving JavaScript code to an external page with unknown encoding). But for serving pages to a browser, this doesn't apply.
This has been confusing me for some time. With the advent of UTF-8 as the de-facto standard in web development I'm not sure in which situations I'm supposed to use the HTML entities and for which ones should I just use the UTF-8 character. For example,
em dash (–, &emdash;)
ampersand (&, &)
3/4 fraction (¾, ¾)
Please do shed light on this issue. It will be appreciated.
Based on the comments I have received, I looked into this a little further. It seems that currently the best practice is to forgo using HTML entities and use the actual UTF-8 character instead. The reasons listed are as follows:
UTF-8 encodings are easier to read and edit for those who understand what the character means and know how to type it.
UTF-8 encodings are just as unintelligible as HTML entity encodings for those who don't understand them, but they have the advantage of rendering as special characters rather than hard to understand decimal or hex encodings.
As long as your page's encoding is properly set to UTF-8, you should use the actual character instead of an HTML entity. I read several documents about this topic, but the most helpful were:
UTF-8: The Secret of Character Encoding
Wikipedia Special Characters Help
From the UTF-8: The Secret of Character Encoding article:
Wikipedia is a great case study for an
application that originally used
ISO-8859-1 but switched to UTF-8 when
it became far too cumbersome to support
foreign languages. Bots will now
actually go through articles and
convert character entities to their
corresponding real characters for the
sake of user-friendliness and
searchability.
That article also gives a nice example involving Chinese encoding. Here is the abbreviated example for the sake of laziness:
UTF-8:
這兩個字是甚麼意思
HTML Entities:
這兩個字是甚麼意思
The UTF-8 and HTML entity encodings are both meaningless to me, but at least the UTF-8 encoding is recognizable as a foreign language, and it will render properly in an edit box. The article goes on to say the following about the HTML entity-encoded version:
Extremely inconvenient for those of us
who actually know what character
entities are, totally unintelligible
to poor users who don't! Even the
slightly more user-friendly,
"intelligible" character entities like
θ will leave users who are
uninterested in learning HTML
scratching their heads. On the other
hand, if they see θ in an edit box,
they'll know that it's a special
character, and treat it accordingly,
even if they don't know how to write
that character themselves.
As others have noted, you still have to use HTML entities for reserved XML characters (ampersand, less-than, greater-than).
You don't generally need to use HTML character entities if your editor supports Unicode. Entities can be useful when:
Your keyboard does not support the character you need to type. For example, many keyboards do not have em-dash or the copyright symbol.
Your editor does not support Unicode (very common some years ago, but probably not today).
You want to make it explicit in the source what is happening. For example, the code is clearer than the corresponding white space character.
You need to escape HTML special characters like <, &, or ".
Entities may buy you some compatibility with brain-dead clients that don't understand encodings correctly. I don't believe that includes any current browsers, but you never know what other kinds of programs might be hitting you up.
More useful, though, is that HTML entities protect you from your own errors: if you misconfigure something on the server and you end up serving a page with an HTTP header that says it's ISO-8859-1 and a META tag that says it's UTF-8, at least your —es will always work.
I would not use UTF-8 for characters that are easily confused visually. For example, it is difficult to distinguish an emdash from a minus, or especially a non-breaking space from a space. For these characters, definitely use entities.
For characters that are easily understood visually (such as the chinese examples above), go ahead and use UTF-8 if you like.
Personally I do everything in utf-8 since a long time, however, in an html page, you always need to convert ampersands (&), greater than (>) and lesser then (<) characters to their equivalent entities, &, > and <
Also, if you intend on doing some programming using utf-8 text, there are a few thing to watch for.
XML needs some extra lines to validate when using entities.
Some libraries do not play along nice with utf-8. For instance, PHP in some Linux distributions dropped full support for utf-8 in their regular expression libraries.
It is harder to limit the number of characters in a text that uses html entities, because a single entity uses many characters. Also there's always the risk of cutting the entity in half.
HTML entities are useful when you want to generate content that is going to be included (dynamically) into pages with (several) different encodings. For example, we have white label content that is included both into ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 encoded web pages...
If character set conversion from/to UTF-8 wasn't such a big unreliable mess (you always stumble over some characters and some tools that don't convert properly), standardizing on UTF-8 would be the way to go.
If your pages are correctly encoded in utf-8 you should have no need for html entities, just use the characters you want directly.
All of the previous answers make sense to me.
In addition: It mostly depends on the editor you intent to use and the document language. As a minimum requirement for the editor is that it supports the document language. That means, that if your text is in japanese, beware of using an editor which does not show them (i.e. no entities for the document itself). If its english, you can even use an old vim-like editor and use entities only for the relative seldom © and friends.
Of course: > for > and other HTML-specials still need escapes.
But even with the other latin-1 languages (german, french etc.) writing ä is a pain in you know where...
In addition, I personally write entities for invisible characters and those which are looking similar to standard-ascii and are therefore easily confused. For example, there is u1173 (looking like a dash in some charsets) or u1175, which looks like the vertical bar. I'd use entities for those in any case.