&nbsp entity (was "Some complaints...")

Rob (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 09:29:06 -0500

Message-Id: <199707131333.JAA25602@unix.asb.com>
From: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 09:29:06 -0500
Subject: &nbsp entity (was "Some complaints...")
CC: www-html@w3.org, "Walter Ian Kaye" <walter@natural-innovations.com>

"David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net> wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 1997:

> Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
> > 2. There is definite statement on &nbsp;&nbsp; being collapsing or
> not.
> A statement there should definitely be, and it should definitely be
> 'not'.

I'm inclined to agree, although frankly I don't care too much for 
&nbsp; since it's one of the most abused things in HTML (in part 
because of some of the awful WYSIWYG authoring tools).

Back when I used to do phototypesetting, there was the "hard space" 
(collapsing), the "full space" (not collapsing) and the "half space" 
(already 'collapsed').  Adding the latter two as entities might clear 
some of the confusion, (along with firther misuse).

Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Se habla PGP.