Re: ERB discussions and decisions: entities

> Lee Quinn <lee@sq.com> writes:
(what is it with all these mailers that change the spelling of my name?)

> >> To the lasting disappointment of the humorists among
> >> us, the name squot was dropped in favor of apos, which occurs in 8879
> >> Annex D, set ISOnum, as do the others.
> >
> >Note that &quot; is a single quote, which does not occur in ASCII.
> >(many implementations include a single quote at position 39 instead
> >of an apostrophe, but this is in error) [...]
> from HTML 2.0 (RFC 1866):
>     "       &quot;      &#34;        Quotation mark
> op.cit., '13. The HTML Coded Character Set':
>     &#34;           Quotation mark
>     &#39;           Apostrophe

> Why do you say &quot; is a single quote? ASCII 34 is a double quote.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
&quot; is defined as [single] quotation mark in ISO8879:1986(e) D.4.3.1,
ENTITIES Numeric and Special Graphic, along with lsquo and rsquo for
open and close single quote and apos for apostrophe.

Joan Smith's book gives a squot as a single quote.  The standard doesn't
say which it is, only that it is a quotation mark, but the 10646 draft I
have uses QUOTATION MARK for a double quote.

I don't know which interpretation is correct, butif RFC1866 has quot being 
a double quote, we'd better stick with it.

I still don't yet see why we need an entitiy for it.  If it had been an
SDATA entity, it would have been useful for escaping markup, but my
understanding is that there are no SDATA dentities in XML.  But I'm
probably confused...

(I think this works for & because Ee isn't a NAME START character)