* Ennio-Sr <nasr.laili@tin.it> [270303, 20:22] wrote:
> I created a table (bibl) from the following txt file containing extended
> ascii chars (environment Latin1). If I do a:
[cut]
Lacking an answer whatsoever from the list, I conducted further tests
combining in different fashion server character set and client encoding
but the result is always the same:
toggling the *expanded display* on hampers translation of some char
codes. With *expanded* turned off, the glyphs are correct whereas
if it is *on* the hex codes are displayed instead.
Could any of the participants to this ML give some suggestion?
Did any of you ever experienced such a behaviour?
Could somebody suggest which source file I should look at to try to
understand what goes on?
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Ennio.
--
[Perche' usare Win$ozz (dico io) se ..."anche uno sciocco sa farlo. \\?//
Fa' qualche cosa di cui non sei capace!" (diceva Henry Miller) ] (°|°)
[Why to use Win$ozz (I say) if ... "even a fool can do that. )=(
Do something you aren't good at!" (used to say Henry Miller) ]
