W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 1999

RE: accented characters, etc.

From: Grzegorz Balnis <gbalnis@abc.com.pl>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:24:16 +0100
Message-ID: <01BF3DAA.D8AD8B90.gbalnis@abc.com.pl>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

I have a feeling that the confusion is between document delivery issues 
and document authoring issues. I take it for granted that HTML does not 
allow for using ISO entities and maybe it's good idea not to use them at 
all (except &amp; and such).
I really need character entities. There's a huge difference between 
guessing that dagger is &dagger; instead of &#x2020;, &ntilde; instead of 
&#xf1 (I mean, when you see it on paper and must type in, but maybe you'll 
never see it in your Win95 window). That's the editorial problem and 
that's why I have chosen for SGML (OK, that's not the only reason).
If I want to deliver my documents, I can translate them to HTML, XML or 
whatever together with entities, no matter, how unreadable the encoding 
is. As long as you have to remember that your reader might use one of 
those stupid :-) non-SGML or Unicode-disabled browsers, sometimes you 
actually have to use font/@face. That's right, if the browsers were good 
enough, there would be no problem to include a few new lines into HTML 
DTD. We have to deal with them anyway.
My problem is, that there's no standard transformation defined between ISO 
character entities and Unicode (or maybe there is?).


Greg Balnis

-----Original Message-----
From:	Dave  J Woolley [SMTP:DJW@bts.co.uk]
Sent:	Friday, December 03, 1999 2:09 PM
To:	www-html@w3.org
Subject:	RE: accented characters, etc.

> From:	Sean Healy [SMTP:jalopeura@hotmail.com]
> letters.  Perhaps something like <OS>~n</OS> could replace &ntilde; (for 
> those of you with HTML-enabled readers, &lt;OS&gt;~n&lt;/OS&gt; and
> &amp;ntilde;).  This would be a big step toward true 
	You are confusing HTML with a page description language;
	we already have people selecting the (MS) Symbol font and
	then outputting an completely inappropriate character
	because Symbol happens to use a glyph for that character
	code that looks like the one really intended.
Received on Friday, 3 December 1999 10:26:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC