There are 2 codes for the em dash, which one is more backwards compatible for older web browsers?<br />
<br />
— versus —<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks<!--content-->The first is listed as the standard em dash (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html#h-24.2">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/en ... tml#h-24.2</a><!-- m -->) and will display correctly in version4+ browsers<!--content-->wont the & # 1 5 1 ; code be the most backward compatible, as it will display in 4+ browsers and any versions before?<br />
<br />
<br />
thanks<!--content-->Use [ — ] (— / — ) the other is a control character NOT the em dash or —<!--content-->what is a control character?<!--content-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_character<!--content-->We use & # 151 ;<br />
Our reasoning is that if the page is encoded to low ascii<br />
<code><br />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><br />
</code><br />
or worse yet: 7-bit US-ASCII<br />
<br />
the browser may throw up with the hi-ascii equivalents. This is even more so with sending HTML email--who knows what YAHOO.com is going to strip out of your HTML!<br />
<br />
em dash & # 151 ; (as long as the M character)<br />
en dash & # 150 ; (as long as the N character)<br />
<br />
& amp ; is pretty consistently interpreted in browsers, but <br />
& ndash ; is not supported in all browsers<!--content-->
<br />
— versus —<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks<!--content-->The first is listed as the standard em dash (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html#h-24.2">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/en ... tml#h-24.2</a><!-- m -->) and will display correctly in version4+ browsers<!--content-->wont the & # 1 5 1 ; code be the most backward compatible, as it will display in 4+ browsers and any versions before?<br />
<br />
<br />
thanks<!--content-->Use [ — ] (— / — ) the other is a control character NOT the em dash or —<!--content-->what is a control character?<!--content-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_character<!--content-->We use & # 151 ;<br />
Our reasoning is that if the page is encoded to low ascii<br />
<code><br />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><br />
</code><br />
or worse yet: 7-bit US-ASCII<br />
<br />
the browser may throw up with the hi-ascii equivalents. This is even more so with sending HTML email--who knows what YAHOO.com is going to strip out of your HTML!<br />
<br />
em dash & # 151 ; (as long as the M character)<br />
en dash & # 150 ; (as long as the N character)<br />
<br />
& amp ; is pretty consistently interpreted in browsers, but <br />
& ndash ; is not supported in all browsers<!--content-->