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)