So? Isn't that what the <META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> tag in the saved file says then? Do we document that it would save in UTF-8? I fail to see how this is a bug. Sure, it would be more "cool" and modern to save as UTF-8, but unless I miss something this is just a low priority enhancement request.
To avoid confusion, let me add that the initial title of this bug report was "HTML files are saved in local encoding (e.g. cp1251) instead of utf8"
Created attachment 47177 [details]
screenshot of Options - Load-Save - HTML Compatibility
You can choose any encoding in Options - Load-Save - HTML Compatibility settings.
OK, so clearly NOTABUG then.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=47177) [details]
> screenshot of Options - Load-Save - HTML Compatibility
> You can choose any encoding in Options - Load-Save - HTML Compatibility
Then why not enable UTF8 in that HTML Compatibility menu by default?
Can it be a small enhancement request?
[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 or beta2 prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
more detail on this bulk operation: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html
This bug persist in LO 3.5.0 RC1 on Windows XP SP3
I've just did fresh install LO 184.108.40.206 with new user profile on PCLinuxos KDE. Unicode (UTF-8) has been applied as default character set (same as screenshot).
This bug happens only on Windows platform. Proof of the bug happening see in attachment.
Created attachment 86016 [details]
an HTML file saved after fresh install of v220.127.116.11 on Win7
proof of the bug
Should stop calling it a bug - it works as expected. It's an enhancement request which might never be implemented if no developer wants to volunteer to tackle it.
Moving to NEW as REOPENED is incorrect.