Hi,

But I would not want to find Zoé if I searched for Zoe. If I had wanted to find Zoé, I would have search for Zoé. That's exactly what's wrong with Google: They give you lots of hits for a search you didn't want them to perform.

Yes, the Cyrillic shows up fine. What happens in the background, though, is that our browsers take a look at the page, can't find the character encoding, and hazard a guess.
* My Firefox guesses it's Latin 1, and then adds extra characters that are encoded as (Unicode) character entities (codes between & and ; to represent characters that can't be represented in HTML, otherwise.)
* The W3C HTML validator guessed Utf-8, rejected that, and then tried Windows-1252 (that's the character set with the non-standard curly quotes), and from there took the same path.
It's differences like those that we should be able to avoid by having the pages specify the character set.

(There were also a few other errors I noticed before, that the validator now protested about. If Max needs help to clean them up, he should feel free to pm me.)

I agree that entering Cyrillic on a Latin keyboard is rather difficult, though, but transliteration would have its drawbacks too. Either way, my guess would be that people who want to search in texts that use other character sets, are likely to also have means to enter such searches.

So how many songs are there about computers?
Bye
                                                                Mysha