what's the difference between these content types

I had one, but I see a lot of this other one used...

[Shadows Papa]

Is there a drawback or advantage to either? Both seem to work from my browsers - IE 6.x and NS 7.1

This is what I use:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

and this is one I found "suggested" in these forums:

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

Shadows Papa

[DrDoc]

For English (and other Western European languages) you can safely use iso-8859-1, sometimes also called "latin-1".

UTF-8 should always work, especially if you have multilingual pages (such as a chat room, in lack of a better example).

But, when you know exactly which charset you're using (meaning, if it's an English only page where you are in control of the content) I'd recommend using iso-8859-1, since it's more specific.

[Shadows Papa]

Thanks, Doc. I'm in control (of the site, anyway!) and it's English only at this time (ok, so it's not the Queen's English!)

Shadows Papa

[g1smd]

UTF-8 is basically unicode and allows a wider character set to be used (but limited by the fonts actually installed on the browser machine).