linuxkidd
Resident
Hi JJackson
We just performed a conversion of the database from an archaic default ( latin_sweedish_cl )... to UTF8 which should make future handling of all character sets better. Unfortunately, it does seem some prior characters that weren't in the [a-zA-Z0-9] sets were replaced by ?'s. This includes some stylized characters that look like ascii chars, but are in-fact more stylized ( from a word processor or wysiwyg content platform, etc). There's not much we can do at this point on those prior posts with ?'s, but I do think moving forward, all characters should be presented correctly on new posts.
Please let me know if there's anything you find in new posts that are not presenting properly.
Thanks,
LK
We just performed a conversion of the database from an archaic default ( latin_sweedish_cl )... to UTF8 which should make future handling of all character sets better. Unfortunately, it does seem some prior characters that weren't in the [a-zA-Z0-9] sets were replaced by ?'s. This includes some stylized characters that look like ascii chars, but are in-fact more stylized ( from a word processor or wysiwyg content platform, etc). There's not much we can do at this point on those prior posts with ?'s, but I do think moving forward, all characters should be presented correctly on new posts.
Please let me know if there's anything you find in new posts that are not presenting properly.
Thanks,
LK