When you say "English publications", do you really mean 'American' publications?
No, it is a single language that was standardised before the
![[americanflag] [americanflag] [americanflag]](/data/assets/smilies/americanflag.gif)
USA existed. Doctor Johnson's dictionary enshrined a lot of existing habits, including odd spellings used by Dutch printers working in London. Thus we are stuck with rough dough-faced ploughmen wandering through Slough. Long-vanished sounds like the 'w' in two and sword' And also nonsense like the 's' in island, based on a mistaken belief it was a word related to 'isle'.
Elsewhere, the language was defined later and more rationally, to define a standard for the spoken word as well as the written word.
The USA missed a great chance to produce a consistent spelling for English as they then spoke it. Instead they made some irritating little changes, color for colour etc.
Typewriters etc. were later designed without accents, at least for English-speakers. And the same thing was carried on when office-equipment makers like IBM built the early computers. It was almost entirely British and American and no one bothered with a quick or simple method for accents. No allowance for
![[olympics] [olympics] [olympics]](/data/assets/smilies/olympics.gif)
internationalism.
As for
ESquared's useful hint, it runs into the trouble that their are 'dialects' of Ascii. It was originally a paper-tape language, and since the paper tape had 7 holes, only 128 characters were defined. Translated onto 8-bit computer bytes, an extra 128 characters were defined, but inconsistently. So you can carefully define an accented character and have it turn into something unreadable when it shifts between machines. You find this even in professional publications, with some odd symbol where quotation marks or similar would be expected.
------------------------------
A view
![[tiger] [tiger] [tiger]](/data/assets/smilies/tiger.gif)
from the UK