> > 1. What the _Browser_ thinks about encoding of your page. > > In menu View > Encoding > what encoding is auto-selected there.
Western / ISO 8859-1 for both. > 2. In Page Info dialog of Firefox > (in Tools menu or in context menu > Page Info ) > > what is Encoding, Content Type, and what META tags are mentioned (does > it include Content-Type tag) > > (disclaimer: I have a localized version of FF, so the above names are > translated ones). Encoding: ISO-8859-1 Content type / meta tags are not mentioned. > 3. Save both pages as HTML (choose "HTML only" format when saving), and > compare > their text. > > Is there any difference? Since the content is Ajax generated, a save-page doesn't make much sense. When I highlight the bits, and do a view-selection-source and then copy/paste this into vi, I notice that the 5.5 page shows the pound sign, while the 6.0 page shows a blank spot where the pound sign is supposed to be. > 4. Well, £ (notice the trailing ';'), or better £ should > display the pound sign > irregardless of what encoding the browser thinks that your page uses. > > Use the &#..; notation if generic xml processing is involved (the > £ entity is defined > for (X)HTML only). The NumberFormat.getCurrencyInstance(Locale.UK) is supposed to save me the pain of putting currency signs in. Thanks for your reply, Konstantin. Regards, Willem
