Re: RS/RE

• To: gtn@ebt.com
• Subject: Re: RS/RE
• From: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
• Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:34:04 -0700
• CC: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com, sjd@ebt.com, tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
• From w3c-sgml-wg-request@www10.w3.org Fri Sep 13 11: 37:21 1996
• In-reply-to: <199609131319.NAA27828@wiley.EBT.COM> (message from Gavin Nicol on Fri, 13 Sep 1996 13:19:14 GMT)

| >Taking this one stage further, having agreed to use ISO 10646 coding we
| >should, therefore, be consistent and use the ISO 6429 control codes
| >referenced in 10646. These define a Record Separator as Hex 1E, and a Unit
| >Separator as Hex 1F. Would these do as replacement values for RE/RS?
| 
| I would prefer setting them to character codes that would never occur, or
| perhaps assigning RE to 0x04 (EOT) and RS to 0x01 (SOH).

The obvious candidate for RE is good old 7-bit ASCII RE: 0x1E
(repeated in 10646, as noted above).  The candidates for RS are not so
obvious; ASCII EOT (0x04) is mnemonically a good candidate, but I lean
towards US (0x1F) because it makes a nice pair of code points (decimal
30 and 31, respectively).

As far as I know, these have been reserved (and very little used)
control codes since the beginning of ASCII.  Are there any others
likely to be less frequently used?

Jon

• Re: RS/RE
• From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>

• Prev: Re: short-tag considered unhealthy
• Next: Re: short-tag considered unhealthy
• Index: Message index of w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org mailing list
• Thread: Thread index of w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org mailing list