W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Input on Fielding's -02 draft

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:38:57 -0400
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030602123857.GJ25970@ccil.org>

Tim Bray scripsit:

> Section 3.1 and elsewhere.  Draft refers to '#' as crosshatch and '@' as 
> 'commercial at sign'.  I'm an old text geek and I don't really know 
> these names.  Might it be a good idea, for maximum reach, to adopt (or 
> at least mention) the Unicode names?

"Commercial at" is indeed the Unicode name of "@"; but I agree that it
would be better to use the Unicode name "number sign" for "#".

-- 
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme):  jcowan@reutershealth.com
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically   http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time.     --robison who's at texas dot net
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 08:39:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT