Re: (Repeat) Decision: C.4 (Predefined entities)
| Paul wrote:
| > here are by far the 4 most used entity refs in your average Adept text
| > document (not counting < and &)
| I think this is useful.
| > “, ” (left double quote and right double quote)
| > —, –
| None of these are in Latin 1 or the Adobe Symbol font (you can't substitute
| the dash from Symbol for a GillSans-UltraBold dash anyway, of course).
| But they are available on all major platforms, whth more or less effort
| from developers.
| But I agree that it would be good to include them.
The list that we've adopted simply mirrors a decision of the HTML ERB.
Their decision was to include the symbol set; the characters that Paul
mentions aren't in it. No argument about relative usefulness here,
just consistency of W3C recommendations.
| I don't understand the point of being so careful about prefixing all
| XML names with -XML- earlier, and now suddenly deciding to add several
| screens' worth of fixed keywords that are not so prefixed. I sense a
| severe case of Rapidly Encroaching Deployment Elegant Architecture
| Reduction Syndrome -- RED EARS :-)
All we're doing is recognizing usage in as conservative a way as
possible. To millions of people, these entity names have become part
of the language. I happen not to like quite a few of them (no
offense, Anders), but we're way beyond changing the practice now. I
don't like people using the word "gender" when they mean "sex",
either, but there comes a point when you have to recognize a cause as
lost and move on. Anyone who uses ω at this point to mean
anything other than GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA is either being
obstinately perverse or just ignorant. All we can do is to
make the most common names part of the standard so that we are at
least doing our best to eliminate the latter possibility.